Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Chicano food A to Z: Cookbook author Esteban Castillo on tacos, margaritas and everything in between

“Chicano Eats” is one of the most colorful and joyous celebrations of food I have ever read. That being said, I wept as I turned the pages of Esteban Castillo’s debut cookbook. I wish this Mexican American boy from Alabama would have had this important work to read as a child. Like Castillo, I grew up watching every move my abuela made in the kitchen. His recipes connect me to my culture. 

After Castillo and I had a candid conversation about the politics of food in the first part of our interview, we turned to the delicious recipes from his vibrant cookbook: cocktails made of mezcal and tequila, our favorite types of tacos and how to braise ribs in michelada sauce. While you can sink your teeth into these recipes any time of the year, they’re perfect for the time when you can fire up a grill and pour an ice-cold drink while you wait for it to heat up.

Contained below are lots of tips and tricks for flavors to consider when making Mexican-inspired food at home. Catch up on part one of my two-part interview with Castillo here. Then enjoy the rest of our conversation below.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

 

What’s the perfect margarita to you? Do you have any tips or secrets?

Definitely a lot of lime juice, because I like my drinks really tart, but also a really good tequila — and lots of it. Basically, all of the drinks in the drinks chapter can be made into a cocktail.

It’s funny, because the different times that I’ve talked about the book on my Instagram, a lot of people have been really excited for the cocktail chapter, specifically. I don’t know what that says about our generation, but there are a lot of really good cocktails in it. There’s one in specific in there that’s inspired by one of my favorite TV shows.

RELATED: Serve these crunchy potato tacos from Esteban Castillo with a big pile of lettuce and queso Cotija

Which TV show?

Well, I love the “Real Housewives” — all of them, all of the franchises — and specifically Orange County, because that’s where I grew up. They always seem to have a spicy margarita. I don’t know why, but that’s what they always ask for. So I decided, “Hey, let me make my own spicy margarita, so that I can have it while I’m watching the show.”

It’s a watermelon margarita. It’s got a little bit of lime juice, triple sec and tequila. But it also has the simple syrup made from toasted chilies de arbol. So it’s got a little fruity, spicy kick to it. It’s really nice.

Watermelon is perfect for summer. My go to drink nowadays is mezcal, and I hear that you’re a fan, too. Do you have some mezcal recipes in the book, as well?

Do I? Yes, I do. I have my dad’s cuba. He doesn’t drink, but whenever we have parties, he’s our go-to bartender (which is kind of weird to think about, because he doesn’t drink). It’s almost like a take on the paloma. There’s grape fruit juice and lime juice. There’s pineapple juice, there’s tequila and there’s mezcal.

If you haven’t had mezcal before, it’s actually the spirit of choice for Mexico. It’s not tequila. It’s similar to tequila, where it’s made from agave, but it’s just smokier. And I feel like it’s just so much more flavorful and a lot more complex.

RELATED: This recipe combines mac and cheese and queso fundido into one dish with so many layers of flavor

One thing I wanted I thought about while I was reading your bookis the idea of comfort food. While everyone’s been caught indoors during quarantine, the the return to comfort has been heralded. As I was telling you earlier, my roommate here is from Monterrey, Mexico. And he told me, I just really want some caldo tlalpeño. I made that, and that to us is comfort food. But when I was looking at comfort food recipes that blogs and publications were re-visiting during the pandemic, it was all meatloaf, macaroni and cheese, what have you.

I realized the comfort food to me is different from comfort food to others, but we’re only seeing the same types of comfort food shared over and over again. So, it really made me think, “What is comfort food? And who decides what it is?”

Yes, I feel like comfort food is in that same boat as the word authentic, where it’s shaped. The word authentic is also borne by your own personal experiences and your surroundings. I hate using the word authentic in my dishes, because my authentic is going to be completely different than yours.

RELATED: Purchase a copy of “Chicano Eats: Recipes From My Mexican-American Kitchen”

Your dad dreamed of the American dream, and I know his story was difficult. Now that your cookbook has been published, do you feel like you’re living the American dream? Is your family proud of you?

It’s funny, because I still don’t feel like my parents completely understand what I do. Even when I was in college and I was explaining to them that I was going into public relations, they didn’t know what that was.

My mom follows me on Instagram, and she thinks that I just post pretty pictures of food and that I love to cook. But I feel like the American dream is . . . I don’t know. That’s a hard one for me to answer, because I feel like it’s kind of like a moving goal. I still have so many more things that I want to do before I can be able to say, “Hey, I’ve made it.”

What are those things? How do you see your brand growing? Does it include possibly opening a location, for example? 

I’d love to, honestly. That’s something that I think about often. And if I have the funds — or if someone just wanted to get me a few million dollars — I’d love that. But I think in the next few years, I would like to start small, with some sort of food truck or some sort of pop-up.

I’ve done a few pop-ups here and there when I was living in Southern California, and that was really great. I loved getting to share my creations and getting to meet these people who have been following me and supporting my work. And I’d love to be able to do something where I can be continuously sharing things physically with them.

Also, I’d love to work on many more books. And, eventually, I feel like once I get to this goal, which would be to have my own show, then I feel like I would be able to say that I’ve achieved my American dream.

What was the process of writing your first cookbook like? It’s a lot of work.

It’s a lot. I knew it was going to be a lot, but I didn’t realize that it was going to be even more than that. It took me about a year to work on a proposal. And then after finishing up the proposal, I went to New York, where I shopped the book around to the different publishers.

I landed with Harper Collins, which has been more than amazing. I was able to work with a Latina editor who had previously lived in Mexico. So that was really great to my experience, because she was able to really get a lot of those little bits and pieces that someone else wouldn’t have been able to. She also understood my Spanglish a lot. She understood what I meant.

After securing the book deal with them, it took me almost two years to finish the book. I shot the book once, and I turned it in. And then I had a few months where I was just working on edits and stuff. And then I was like, “You know what? I think my photos could be even better.” So I ended up shooting the book twice, and that’s just me being a perfectionist and always having that impossible standard.

You talked about your abuelo’s tacos, and I know there’s a recipe for those in the book. Do you have a favorite taco? What’s your favorite taco overall?

It would have to be able to mi abuelito’s tacos de adobada, which are these pork tacos similar to al pastor, where it’s pork marinated in an adobdo. That sits overnight. How do I explain it to you? It’s super fruity. It’s a little acidic from the vinegar. And every time I smell those tacos, it just instantly takes me back to sitting next to mi abuelito. I guess I just hear that piece of pork just sizzling on the griddle and it just . . . I don’t know . . . It just brings me back to being a kid. And for me, those are my favorite tacos. 

What is your favorite thing to grill?

Anything and everything.

One of my favorite recipes in the book was the ribs, which have a michelada sauce. Right?

Yes, michelada-braised ribs.

Can you tell us about how you combined a favorite drink and ribs together?

After moving down to Southern California from college, I was able to visit my parents often. And whenever we had some sort of celebration, they always loved going to a barbecue joint.

We would go, and everything would be kind of dry. The ribs would have not a ton of meat. So I had my own place, and I was like, “Hey dad, why can’t I just . . . Give me a chance. Let me do this, and we could totally make all of this dinner for half of the price or even a third of the price.”

So I started making these ribs. I was living in an apartment at the time, so I started braising them in the oven. The braising liquid is a combination of the flavors that you find in the michelada, which is beer, a little bit of soy sauce, a little bit of steak sauce and then some steak seasoning in there.

You just leave them in the oven for about three hours — until the meat literally just falls apart — and then you finish them in the broiler. And it was one of those really neat recipes to be able to have in my Rolodex, because when I was living in an apartment, I didn’t always have an access to a grill. So, I kind of had to get creative with what I had on hand, and the ribs are perfect.

To go back to what we were talking about before, Mexican food is so regional. A michelada in the Yucatan doesn’t have the hot sauce in it. It’s just really the salt and the lime juice. So, the first time I saw a michelada that was like the one you’re describing, it was a very different experience for me.

We were in Cancun for a trip. I remember asking for a michelada, and I got that. And then I was like, “No, but I want a red beer.” They were like, “Oh, this is called an ojo rojo.”

Yes.

I was like, “That’s so interesting.”

The food in the Yucatan is very much based around acid, because you have the sour orange, in addition to lemons and limes, which plays so much of a role there. Do you have a favorite recipe in the book? That’s probably a hard question.

It is — honestly, it’s such a hard question. But if there’s anything that I could eat for the rest of my life every day, it would be sopes, which is one of the recipes from the book. It’s these fat little masa discs that are fried until they’re golden brown.

They’re a little bit different than how the rest of Mexico makes them. In Colima, they’re very thin, and they’re top with ground beef or lomo, which is like a pork loin. And they’re topped with this consomme — that’s like tomato broth. And then it’s got like shredded lettuce, queso fresco, tomato and hot sauce. It’s one of my favorite things. It’s one of those things that my mom used to make for birthdays, so I really love that.

Click here to purchase a copy of “Chicano Eats: Recipes From My Mexican-American Kitchen.”

 

Free yourself from the stove: The best way to cook onions is in your favorite slow cooker

Of all the lies that cooking tells us, the greatest is how long it takes to caramelize alliums.

If you’re following a recipe for cake, it’ll (likely) tell you accurately how long to bake it in the oven. If you’d like to boil an egg, you can find multiple guides which will tell you the exact moment to pull it out to achieve your desired level of yolk consistency.

But nearly every dish involving onions, leeks, shallots and the like will advise you to sauté them “until golden,” or about 15 minutes. If you think I’m kidding, be my guest. Look up some recipes for onion soup, which say the main ingredient be “tender, sweet and caramel colored” in “15 to 18 minutes.” Or check out a certain famous recipe for shallot pasta claiming the star ingredient will be “totally softened and caramelized with golden-brown fried edges” in “15 to 20 minutes.” 

Putting this guidance into practice yields two possible results. You’ll either hit the 20-minute mark and realize you have at least another half hour to go, hoping nobody is too hungry, or you’ll crank up the heat and wind up with a pot of burned, bitter onions and a kitchen that stinks for days. Take it from me: I’ve done both. As Tom Scocca once wrote in Slate, “In truth, the best time to caramelize onions is yesterday.”

So I want you to caramelize your onions yesterday. I want you to liberate yourself from both your delusions and your stovetop. Do you have a slow cooker? Do you have an Instant Pot? Of course you do — you bought one or both on Prime Day a few years back. Bust one of them out now, and get your money’s worth.

I often wind up using the Little Dipper slow cooker which came with my Crock Pot for the job. It’s the perfect size to melt down a single Vidalia. I thinly slice one up in the morning, and come dinnertime, I have a thick, jammy portion of deliciousness to apply toward dinner. As a bonus, it makes the whole apartment smell like my favorite old-school French restaurant.

You can, however, use whatever sized slow cooker you have, as well as the slow cooker function on your Instant Pot, to cook a whole bunch of alliums at once. I like to drizzle in a hit of molasses near the end of the cooking time to accentuate the taste and enhance the lush color. You may also add a few drops of vinegar to up the acidity.

Once you get in the habit, it’s a glorious thing to have a supply of soft, sweet onions, leeks or shallots tucked away in the fridge to zhush up every dish you’ve got going on all week. A grilled cheese with caramelized onions is objectively the best lunch possible, and there’s no chicken, homemade pizza, pasta or soup that isn’t improved by the addition of that deep, rich allium flavor. The only limitation is how much of a bag of onions you can slice through before your weeping, watering eyes give out.

**

Recipe: Slow Cooker Caramelized Onions, Leeks or Shallots

Yields as much as you want

Ingredients:

  • Peeled and thinly sliced alliums (3 pounds is a good start)
  • 3 tablespoons olive oil, more or less
  • Healthy pinch of salt
  • Optional: Drizzle of molasses or pinch of brown sugar 

Instructions:

  1. Add the alliums, enough oil to coat them and salt to your slow cooker.
  2. Stir well to coat and cook on low for 8 to 10 hours.
  3. If you like, add a tablespoon of molasses or brown sugar during the last hour or so.
  4. They’re ready when they’re soft and caramel colored. Serve on everything.

Regis Philbin, legendary TV host, dies at 88

Emmy-winning TV host Regis Philbin, best known for his long stint on syndicated morning talkshow “Live” and on ABC’s primetime hit gameshow “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” died of natural causes, according to People. He was 88.

“His family and friends are forever grateful for the time we got to spend with him – for his warmth, his legendary sense of humor, and his singular ability to make every day into something worth talking about. We thank his fans and admirers for their incredible support over his 60-year career and ask for privacy as we mourn his loss,” the Philbin family told People.

Philbin’s reps didn’t immediately respond to Variety‘s request for comment.

Read more from Variety: Peter Green, Fleetwood Mac founder, dies at 73

Always ready with a quip or observation, Philbin styled himself after Jack Paar, particularly Paar’s way of connecting with the camera. Philbin said he admired Paar’s “chatty style and personality” and infused his own on-air persona with similar intimacy.

“I told stories of what had happened in my life during the week, all very similar to the kind of stuff Jack was doing night after night,” Philbin wrote in his 2011 book “How I Got This Way.” “I’ve never stopped doing it that way.”

Despite his approachability and personality, however, Philbin took care not to outshine his guests. Told early in his career that he was a good listener, he channeled that talent into his interview style: “You just don’t go to the next question and you don’t jump all over the guest. You let them be the star of whatever time they have with you,” he said.

First aired in 1983 as “The Morning Show” locally by WABC-TV in New York, “Live” began as a weekday 90-minute show co-hosted with Cyndy Garvey. In 1984, it changed to a 60-minute format (with a new co-host, Ann Abernathy). And in 1988, it entered into national syndication as “Live With Regis and Kathie Lee” when Gifford joined the show.

Read more from Variety: Taylor Swift’s “Folklore” album review

The chemistry with Gifford was immediate. “We kind of came across as diametric opposites,” Philbin said, “which seemed to give the audience as much of a kick as we got from our silly ribbings of each other.”

They were also unafraid to throw themselves into audience-pleasing physical absurdities with their guests. Philbin noted, “I believe we were the first show to introduce those bulky fat suits that made us look like Japanese sumo wrestlers.”

Gifford’s long tenure on the show was followed in 2000-01 by a title change to “Live With Regis” and a succession of guest co-hosts. In 2001, Kelly Ripa joined the show, which became “Live With Regis and Kelly.” Philbin remained at core of the program.

Read more from Variety: “Jimmy Carter Rock & Roll President”: Film review

In 2011 Philbin left the long-running talkshow, which by this time had aired over 6,000 editions, hosted more than 20,000 guests and been seen by 1.1 million in-studio audience members. Producers of the show estimate that its out-of-town audience members have generated a half billion dollars for New York City’s economy.

Born in New York City, Regis Francis Xavier Philbin initially aspired to be a Bing Crosby-style crooner, but he took a different path into show business.

He began on TV behind the scenes, as a page for “The Tonight Show” in the 1950s. He followed with work in local TV markets in Los Angeles and San Diego, working as a reporter, writer, substitute anchor and anchor.

His first talkshow, “The Regis Philbin Show,” first aired on KOGO in San Diego in 1961. The show’s low budget precluded writers or producers, which allowed Philbin to developed his trademark “host chat” opening segment.

He had a brief and tantalizing foray into nation syndication in 1964-65 with “That Regis Philbin Show,” and his next big break came in 1967, when he was an announcer on “The Joey Bishop Show,” playing second banana to the former Rat Packer.

Philbin also hosted more local talkshows in Los Angeles and St. Louis.

In 1975, he was on “A.M. Los Angeles,” a show co-hosted initially with Sarah Purcell, then Garvey. During his tenure, the show rose to No. 1 in the ratings and stayed there until 1981, when Philbin left.

In addition to his numerous talkshow gigs, Philbin did host stints on gameshows, including “The Good Neighbors,” which had a brief run during 1975-76 and, most famously, “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” (1999-2003).

He made guest appearances on numerous TV series, including “How I Met Your Mother,” “30 Rock,” “Ugly Betty,” “Seinfeld,” co-host Ripa’s series “Hope and Faith,” “Mad About You” and “Spin City.”

Most recently, he won a Daytime Emmy for outstanding talkshow host in 2011, with co-host Ripa, for “Live With Regis and Kelly.” He won two Daytime Emmys in 2001, one for outstanding talkshow host for “Live With Regis” and another for gameshow host for “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” He and Ripa also won a Daytime Emmy for outstanding special class special for hosting the 2006 “Walt Disney World Christmas Parade.” He was recognized in 2008 with a Daytime Emmy award for lifetime achievement.

In 2011 he guested on NBC’s “30 Rock” as himself, and in 2012 he appeared on two episodes of TV Land’s “Hot in Cleveland.”

In 2015 he reunited with Kathie Lee Gifford by joining the fourth hour of NBC’s “Today.”

He holds the Guinness World Record for Most Hours on Camera on U.S. television, clocking more than 16,700 hours over the course of his career.

He was able to fulfill his dream of singing amid his other television projects, releasing several albums, including 1968’s “It’s Time for Regis!,” “When You’re Smiling” (2004) and “The Regis Philbin Christmas Album” (2005).

Philbin is survived by his wife, Joy Senese Philbin, and their two daughters, as well as a son and daughter from a previous marriage. Joy was a frequent guest co-host on “Live.”

Cheers to a solid launch for MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” – but from here on out, it’s time to get tougher

The debut week of MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” featured A-list guests eager to chat with Joy Reid, the very first being the Democrats’ presumptive nominee Joe Biden and former Secretary of State and 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

They and the other politicians, specialists and MSNBC contributors invited on to speak to the day’s topics feted Reid with congratulations before answering the first questions she posed. None of the exchanges yielded shocking answers or were even particularly probing. Then again, none of it was intended to be.

It seems the goal with Reid’s prime-time premiere was to mark a smooth transition that introduces her to an audience that was once loyal to “Hardball with Chris Matthews” to Reid’s more amiable and even presence, a style that served her well as the host of “AM Joy” on Saturday and Sunday mornings. Hosting “The ReidOut” makes Reid the first Black woman to anchor a prime-time cable news program, joining a lengthening list of such firsts in 2020.

Prior to “AM Joy” Reid hosted the weekday series “The Reid Report” until 2015, but it struggled in the ratings and was canceled. She was then shifted into the national correspondent position, filling in for other prime-time hosts in the interim, including Matthews.

Reid’s success is a long time coming and worth celebrating. The fact that it took this long for any cable news network to break this barrier – let alone liberal-leaning MSNBC, which marked the 24th anniversary of its existence this month – evinces the shoddy job that the news industry has done with nurturing and promoting talent that isn’t white and overwhelmingly male.

According to a 2018 Pew Research Center study, more than three-quarters of employees working at newspaper, in broadcasting newsrooms and internet-based news sites, are non-Hispanic whites, based on an analysis of 2012-2016 American Community Survey data. Around six out of 10 are men, and around 48% are non-Hispanic white men, compared to about a third (34%) of workers overall. 

Those numbers pre-date the wave of newspaper closures that have ravaged the industry over the last couple of years; according to the results of a Newsroom Diversity Survey conducted by the American Society of News Editors and released late last year, people of color represent 21.9% of the salaried workforce among newsrooms that responded to that year’s Newsroom Employment Diversity Survey.

That’s still a proportionally better showing than MSNBC features, even with Reid joining its prime-time lineup. Right now between 5 p.m. and midnight two women – Reid and Rachel Maddow – sit alongside Chuck Todd, Ari Melber, Chris Hayes, Lawrence O’Donnell, and Brian Williams.

Reid’s tenure at NBC and her success with “AM Joy” make her the right person for this job in any scenario and particularly in this moment, with just barely 100 days until a presidential election in which Black women stand to play a vital role.

Arguably, too, Reid’s prime-time moment only could have happened under different leadership than that of the last few years, when NBC News was led by Andrew Lack.

Lack’s leadership will be remembered for hiring Megyn Kelly from Fox News, a gamble that ended in a blackface-related disasterallegedly suppressing Ronan Farrow’s reporting on Harvey Weinstein before he published in the New Yorker, eventually winning a Pulitzer Prize for his work; and for being the man on deck when Matt Lauer’s cloud of sexual misconduct accusations came to light. Lack is also seen as the force behind the abrupt exit of Melissa Harris-Perry, who hosted an eponymous weekend show in the same time slot “AM Joy” would eventually occupy.

In an email that went public on Medium, Harris-Perry accused NBC News management of sidelining her in the heat of the 2016 election and removing editorial control from her and her staff. In subsequent coverage MSNBC denied that was the case – but Harris-Perry’s searing account is still out there, and her 2016 allegations sound very similar to the stories journalists of color have been sharing about their experiences in the industry in 2020.

(It must be mentioned that Reid also came under fire during Lack’s reign: In 2017, homophobic statements originating from a decade-old blog resurfaced. Initially she maintained that she’d been hacked but when an investigator could not corroborate that claim, she apologized.)

In May Lack was replaced by former Telemundo chairman Cesar Conde, who has the title of chairman of the NBC Universal News Group, giving him oversight of NBC News, MSNBC, and CNBC.

On a channel where the pool of topic contributors on most news programs tends to look at lot like most of its hosts, the Week 1 guest list for “The ReidOut” serves as both a establishing shot of content to come and an effort to start making up for missed opportunities during Chris Matthews’ reign.

Reid interviewed Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch,  Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MI), Black Lives Matter Chicago co-founder Aislinn Pulley, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and WNBA player Renee Montgomery.

The list of interview subjects also included but is not limited to former Attorney General Eric Holder, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and . . . sigh . . . Michael Moore.

It should not escape anyone’s notice that these are friendly subjects to a one – including Biden, to whom Reid provided a platform to criticize Donald Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic, his reaction to Black Lives Matter protests, and his overall lack of leadership. Biden also gifted Reid with the confirmation that four Black women are among the list of candidates being vetted to be his pick for Vice President.

Expecting any prime-time cable news series to emerge from the egg as a fully realized entity is unreasonable, even one anchored by a journalist that’s sliding from one time slot on the same network into another.

“AM Joy” covered many of the same topics Reid touched upon during her first week – race, politics culture – and Reid has closely reported upon Black Lives Matter since the movement emerged in 2013. But it was also two hours long, affording Reid more time to extensively dive into political developments and other topics with her guests.

“The ReidOut” in its initial form feels much faster, and understandably so – she has half the time to cover the day’s events in an era in which press freedoms and democracy itself are under assault.

During a period largely defined by the alarming news that federal troops under the President’s orders were beating and gassing protesters in Portland, Oregon, expressly against the desires of that city’s mayor and the state’s governor, the subjects to whom Reid gave a forum are ones who needed to be heard. Surely it’s not a coincidence that Bottoms and Harris are rumored to be on Biden’s list of possible picks, but they’re also at the center of two headline-dominating struggles between the federal government and state and local authorities. They’re not getting a hearing on Fox News’ prime-time shows.

Here is as fine a place as any to ponder what “The ReidOut” might eventually become. Reid’s emphasis on examining the intersection of race, class, and politics places her in a tremendous position on MSNBC and in the cable news field generally, in that she’s poised to tell stories to a broader audience than those regularly following other newscasters and anchors reporting on marginalized communities.

But that also means going tougher on some of the very people to whom she spoke this week. I’m less apt to critique her soft handling of Biden in her series premiere than I may be as the election draws nearer, and certainly if he wins the presidency.  

MSNBC has raised its ratings by styling itself as the anti-Fox News, but even Fox wins points now and then, and a false aura of legitimacy, by throwing Trump in front of the likes of Chris Wallace every now and then for a bout of light sparring so the world can cheer when the leader of the free world gets winded.

“The ReidOut” gives its anchor the potential to sharpen her reputation as a tough but fair inquisitor, a side of her that we didn’t see this week but needs to emerge – especially as progressive politicians woo voters from marginalized communities with the sorts of assurances that tend to be sidelined or dropped once they win office.

Reid is in a position to break down stories concerning race, culture and social justice to the mainstream news audience with an authority other anchors do not have, not by nature of her identity but through the consistency of her reporting.  The hope is that she’ll have the time and support to do so instead of simply fitting in with the rest of MSNBC’s personalities, who are quite good at what they do while also echoing one another on similar topics.

The debut episode of “The ReidOut” attracted 2.6 million viewers, making it the second-highest rated program in the 7 p.m. time slot in MSNBC’s history, according to Nielsen Media Research data – an auspicious start to a week in which Reid’s groundbreaking achievement was cheered by her interview subjects. It was a gracious launch, and fine to witness. From here on out is where the tough work should kick in, and that’s what I’ll be watching for.

Peter Green, Fleetwood Mac founder, dies at 73

Peter Green, founder of Fleetwood Mac and the band’s widely admired guitarist and vocalist in its early years before drug abuse and mental illness foreshortened his career, has died. He was 73.

Solicitors acting on behalf of his family said in a statement, as reported by the BBC: “It is with great sadness that the family of Peter Green announce his death this weekend, peacefully in his sleep.

“A further statement will be provided in the coming days.”

“Peter, in his prime in the ’60s, was without equal,” said John Mayall in “Man of the World,” a 2009 BBC documentary about Green. “He was a force to be reckoned with.”

READ MORE from Variety: Taylor Swift’s “Folklore”: Album review

In 1966, Mayall helped establish Green as a guitar hero when he hired the 20-year-old musician to replace Eric Clapton in his blues-rock unit the Bluesbreakers.

Green’s liquid tone (produced on a 1959 Gibson Les Paul) and lyrical, imaginative solo work instantly made him one of England’s most highly rated guitarists. After only a year and one album with Mayall, he exited to start up his own band, which he christened Fleetwood Mac in honor of his Mayall colleagues who ultimately became its rhythm section, drummer Mick Fleetwood and bassist John McVie.

With co-lead guitarist/vocalist Jeremy Spencer, Green fronted a powerful quartet that delivered a stirring brace of Chicago blues covers and some of their own similarly styled material.

One Green “original” of this era, the minor-key “Black Magic Woman” – essentially a straight lift of Chicago guitarist Otis Rush’s classic 1958 recording “All Your Love (I Miss Loving)” – became a No. 4 U.S. hit for Santana in 1970.

With the addition in 1968 of a third guitarist, teenage phenom Danny Kirwan, Fleetwood Mac began to move beyond the blues into more expressive musical territory. Green’s dreamy, Santo & Johnny-inspired instrumental “Albatross” — which John Lennon said influenced his song “Sun King,” on the Beatles’ “Abbey Road” album — reached the top of the U.K. singles chart late that year.

The band rapidly morphed into a powerful and versatile hard rock unit that won a growing fan base in America with its live shows; it scored a U.S. major label deal that it would retain for 50 years.

READ MORE from Variety: Logic’s “No Pressure”: Album review

However, Green’s disillusionment with the music business, deepening involvement with psychedelic drugs and mental instability led him to exit the band in May 1970, days after the release of the doom-infused, keening single “The Green Manalishi (With the Two Prong Crown),” his last work as a member of Fleetwood Mac.

Green’s discontinuous solo career began with the all-instrumental 1970 solo album “End of the Game.” But his escalating psychiatric problems, diagnosed later as schizophrenia and treated with electroconvulsive therapy, led to his arrest in 1977 after he threatened to shoot his accountant with a pump-action rifle.

He told his biographer Martin Celmins in 1996, “I guess I took one trip too many.”

Following extended hospitalization, he lived with his family. Though he returned to recording in the late ’70s, he wrote little of his own material; his wife and his brother Mike penned the majority of the songs for his albums of the ’80s.

After another protracted layoff from music, Green weaned himself off his psychiatric medications; rejuvenated, he returned in 1996 with his Splinter Group, devoting himself largely to performing the classic blues repertoire.

READ MORE from Variety: Billie Eilish to drop new song “My Future,” next week

He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a member of Fleetwood Mac in 1998.

He was born Peter Allen Greenbaum in London’s East End on Oct. 29, 1946. He got his first guitar from his brother Len, after his older sibling became disinterested in learning to play the instrument. An early influence on his style was Hank Marvin, lead guitarist for the Shadows, but his playing came to encompass the styles of such American blues stylists as Otis Rush, B.B. King and Freddy King.

Green played both bass and guitar for London acts that included the Muskrats and the Tridents. His highest-profile gig before joining Mayall’s band was as lead guitarist for keyboardist Peter Bardens’ group the Looners.

He coveted Clapton’s role in Mayall’s popular blues group, and when the presence of the group’s established star became intermittent in 1966 before he left permanently, his persistent lobbying of the Bluesbreakers leader paid off with a substitute gig. Green took the guitar chair permanently with Clapton’s departure for Cream.

Green recorded “A Hard Road,” his only full set with Mayall, with a rhythm section that included McVie and drummer Aynsley Dunbar; the latter was ultimately replaced, very briefly, by Fleetwood. The album featured a haunting instrumental penned by Green, “The Supernatural,” which prefigured his similarly impressionistic work with Fleetwood Mac.

By 1967, Green’s reputation among British blues guitarists was nearly the equal of Clapton’s, and, seeking more control over his career, he exited Mayall’s group. Fleetwood, whom Mayall had sacked for persistent misbehavior, joined immediately, while McVie, who was hesitant to leave his salaried status with his long-term boss, came aboard after making another album with the Bluesbreakers.

With Spencer handling Elmore James-style slide numbers and Green essaying flashy single-string solo work, Fleetwood Mac scored immediately in the U.K. with its self-titled debut album (No. 4, 1968) and the follow-up “Mr. Wonderful” (No. 10, 1968), both cut with producer Mike Vernon.

After Kirwan was added to the lineup in early 1969, the band traveled to Chicago to record another set of pure blues with such local stars as guitarist Buddy Guy, pianist Otis Spann and harp player Walter Horton at Chess Records’ fabled studio.

But by the time of that session, “Albatross” had vaulted to No. 1 on the British chart, and Fleetwood Mac’s sound altered quickly and dramatically; a U.S. tour on which they played several dates with the Grateful Dead had introduced them to both the San Francisco group’s jamming style and (via the American band’s sound man and in-house chemist Owsley “Bear” Stanley) the potent hallucinogen LSD.

Green’s introspective “Man of the World” — a song guitarist Spencer later described as “almost like a suicide note” — and the two-sided electric/acoustic opus “Oh Well” both hit No. 2 on the British charts in 1969. One of the best known songs of Green’s era with the band, “Oh Well” has been covered by artists ranging from Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers to Haim over the years.

Those ambitious singles were followed by the album “Then Play On,” released in the U.S. by Warner Bros.; there, Spencer remained largely sidelined in favor of a biting two-guitar attack by Green and Kirwan. The collection contained Green’s latter-day concert showcase “Rattlesnake Shake.”

By early 1970, Green was beginning to show the signs of severe mental illness; some observers believe his condition was exacerbated during the band’s tour the previous year by an acid trip at Munich’s notorious hippie enclave the Highfisch-Kommune. (According to Fleetwood and McVie in the “Man of the World” documentary, Kirwan also partook at the party and suffered from mental illness afterward. Kirwan died in 2018.)

Green railed against rock ‘n’ roll materialism, gave away his money and property and unsuccessfully asked his band mates to divest themselves of their earnings. He announced his intention to leave the band that spring.

Following his departure from Fleetwood Mac, Green returned for sporadic guest appearances: He briefly substituted for Jeremy Spencer, who had himself bolted the band to join the religious cult the Children of God, on a 1971 U.S. tour, and he made cameo appearances on the albums “Penguin” (1973) and “Tusk” (1979).

Green’s condition deteriorated precipitously following the release of the jam-oriented “The End of the Game.” In the late ’70s, he suffered what biographer Celmins described as “a full-blown nervous breakdown.” Though he returned to recording and live performing with his guitar skills largely unimpaired, he would never pen another memorable composition.

However, he ultimately reclaimed his musical career and, taking the stage arm-in-arm with Fleetwood Mac’s latter-day star Stevie Nicks, he appeared at the band’s Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction in New York in 1998. He continued to perform and tour over the years.

Divorced from Jane Samuels Green, he is survived by their daughter Rose Samuels-Greenbaum.

“A perfect tsunami”: Cook Political Report predicts Democrats now favored to take back the Senate

Democrats have not held control of the United States Senate since losing in the 2014 election, but are on pace to regain the majority in November according to a new analysis by the Cook Political Report.

“With just over 100 days until Election Day, the political climate appears dire for Republicans across the board. President Trump is the decided underdog against former Vice President Joe Biden in our Electoral College ratings and Democrats could end up expanding their House majority,” Jessica Taylor wrote.

“That leaves the Senate as Republicans’ firewall—the final barrier to unified control for Democrats in 2021. While GOP incumbents are trying to run races independent of the president, if Trump’s polling numbers remain this dismal come November, that’s an unenviable and likely unsuccessful strategy, according to several top party strategists. As of now, Democrats are a slight favorite to win the Senate majority,” the report explained.

“We wrote four months ago that the worsening pandemic, along with Biden emerging as the Democratic nominee instead of Bernie Sanders, was the “perfect storm” Republicans feared. Now, with the death toll nearing 150,000, the environment has gotten even worse for the GOP, prodded along by Trump’s missteps. Racial injustice protests after the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery in early June further galvanized the nation, leading to rapid cultural shifts against Confederate monuments and even the long pushed for change of the Mississippi state flag, which still bore the Confederate battle flag emblem.

Taken together, that’s not just a perfect storm for Democrats, but perhaps a perfect tsunami.”

The group changed its ratings in five key races.

In Arizona, interim Republican Sen. Martha McSally’s reelection campaign went from toss-up to leaning Democrat. McSally is being challenged by former astronaut Mark Kelly.

In Iowa, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst’s campaign had been rating as leaning Republican, but is now considered a toss-up. Ernst is being challenged by Theresa Greenfield.

In Georgia, Republican Sen. David Perdue’s chances had been rated as leaning Republican, but is now considered a toss-up.

Street smart: The case for closing streets to cars — and opening them to schools

A slogan of Parisian protesters in the 1960s, seen in graffiti and chants alike, ran like this: “At the end of our streets, the stars.” The maxim encapsulated a positive vision of urban spaces beyond the repressive and car-choked hellscapes they’d become under the weight of modernity. Now, as more and more cities experiment with closing streets to vehicular traffic and opening them up to pedestrians, the Parisians’ utopian sentiments are becoming more common.

Examples of successful street closures abound around the globe. Few cars drive down Broadway in midtown Manhattan these days; not since the street was closed to vehicular traffic and transformed into an open-air plaza lined with tables and benches. Following the World Trade Center attacks, New York barricaded many of the streets in the Financial District, creating a pedestrian corridor that nearly two decades on, has become a vital pedestrian thoroughfare. Now, to alleviate the crowded conditions that public parks are experiencing as sun-starved residents emerge from months of self-quarantine, the city is exploring the possibility of strategically closing cross streets. In Europe, metropolises from Madrid to Milan, Barcelona to Berlin, have all benefitted from closing streets to cars and converting them to other uses. Paris is looking to expand its sidewalks to accommodate social distancing by appropriating more than 70% of its on-street parking spaces.

Yet the most important role for urban streets may lie ahead. As city schools look for guidance about reopening, one option literally waits outside their door: Closing off the streets in front of schools and turning them into classrooms. This “found space”— which, it’s critical to note incurs little or no cost to create at a time when cities’ tax-revenues are declining precipitously and operations budgets are being cut—satisfies common-sense social distancing practices that current indoor classroom configurations typically preclude.

To this end, may I propose an analogous refrain of the Parisian appel aux armes: ‘At the end of our streets—our stellar schools.’

Once schools reopen, parents everywhere can get back to work and rebuild the economic growth cycle in restaurants, retail, and the myriad of mom-and-pop enterprises that have vanished (hopefully not permanently) in the past several months.

Getting our schools open for our children triggers the reopening of our communities and must take top priority. It needs the cooperation of city agencies; in particular the municipal departments that control streets and sidewalks.

If streets can become parks for the citizens who can no longer enjoy the city’s pools and playgrounds, why not also turn them into classrooms when our children are ready to return to school?

In fact, our streets already are classrooms. Anyone growing up in the city is familiar with the phrase “street smart”: It’s what happens when our children play tag, hide and seek, pick-up ball, and eventually find their way safely around the neighborhood. Modern educators see the value in this kind of “experiential learning” — the opportunity for children to learn through unstructured, hands-on play and making activities. What better way than to teach by example, and respond to this pandemic by creatively repurposing one thing into another?

In practical terms, reopening schools hinges on reducing the number of children in the classroom at any given time. Just like in our workplaces, where planners are discussing staggering employees to take turns working remotely from home, educators are also looking at that option. The problem with that idea is that parents will have to stay home too, so it’s not an ideal solution. But do the math: If a school can double its number of classrooms, it can cut the occupancy of those rooms by half.

It’s a little stretch of the imagination, but by setting up learning environments in an empty, secure street using moveable partitions and stackable/collapsible furniture, teachers and students can plan and design custom-made spaces, improving the iterations on a weekly basis, while partnering in the transformation and problem-solving with their own hands and minds.

In inclement weather, students could stay at home, in a variation on the traditional snow day celebration. But during most of the shoulder seasons, the fresh air and natural light are welcome assets. Schools in rainy locations might look to London-based theatre consultants Charcoalblue, who are working on plans for a pop-up venue that can be easily assembled for outdoor events; street-schools could adapt that same kind of flexible, mobile model to their needs.

If city leaders, agencies, and school authorities are willing to play in the same sandbox, they can transform the streets with a coat of water-based paint, turn fences into chalkboards, erect heated tents, and roll out outdoor sinks and water fountains — all actions that can deployed immediately

For one year, let’s dedicate the valuable, flat, and accessible square footage we now cede to parked and moving fossil-fuel-consuming polluters (whose absence in the past several weeks city dwellers around the world have so enjoyed!) to our children. 

Extreme weather would be the only reason why half the class would have to work remotely from home, but then again, who doesn’t love a snow day—even one in spring?

Speeding up poultry lines in a pandemic puts workers’ lives in danger

In April, while COVID-19 continued to spread around the country, the lines at meat processing plants were moving at the speed of 140 birds per minute. Not only does this speed put workers in danger of injury, but it also puts them at risk of COVID-19 infection because it requires them to have to stand very close to one another.

Then, despite Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for protecting meatpacking workers from COVID-19 using physical distancing, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service inexplicably gave approval to 15 poultry plants with already poor safety records to speed up their poultry processing lines even further.

Over half of the plants have had ongoing outbreaks of COVID-19, but the companies still sought to substantially increase their line speeds by 25 percent, to 175 birds per minute, which necessitates squeezing workers closer together on the lines and prevents proper social distancing.

COVID-19 has already infected at least 35,000 meatpacking workers and killed many. Raising line speeds further endangers the plant workers and their families and communities—and the Trump administration has done little to address this.

The consequences of increasing line speeds at any time, let alone during a global pandemic, fall not on the policymakers and plant owners responsible for this egregious decision, but on the plant workers—the community of Black, Latinx, immigrant, and refugee workers who make up the majorityof the workforce in these facilities.

To protect these people, the plants should be slowing down their lines to allow physical distancing among workers. Unfortunately, this industry has a history of violating the basic human rights of its workers—by denying restroom breaksfailing to provide adequate personal protective equipment, and even reprimanding workers for warning co-workers about possible exposure during the pandemic.

Read more Civil Eats: Could a Detroit Experiment Unleash the Power of Urban Soil?

For decades, the poultry industry has relied heavily on the underpaid labor of Black and Brown workers to bolster their bottom lines, even if their astronomical revenue streams come at the expense of workers’ health, safety, and even lives. Oftentimes, when major poultry companies are cited for violating safety standards, the fines they pay are a small fraction of the true cost.

For example, several workers at a George’s Processing plant in Missouri suffered amputations in recent years, but the company only paid a little over $9,000 in penalties. That is an insignificant cost for a company that generates billions in revenue annually, let alone the fact that those workers must live with terrible injuries for the rest of their lives.

The four companies that received the USDA waivers in April—Tyson Foods, Wayne Farms, George’s Processing, and Mountaire Farms—not only have poor safety records, but their corporate history is also laden with workplace violations that include racial discrimination and other suppressive tactics like punishing workersfor staying home when they’re sick.

Tyson Foods is the largest poultry slaughter and production company in the U.S., worth $21 billion. Yet, despite its wealth, the company does not use its fortune to sufficiently protect its labor force. In 2016, the company paid $1.6 million in a hiring discrimination settlement that alleged the company unfairly profiled thousands of women and people of color based on their sex, race, or ethnicity.

In the same year, the company was slapped with a $236,000 fine from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for safety violations at a Texas plant that involved a worker losing a finger. However, despite these past cases, Tyson Foods received line speed waivers in April for processing facilities in six states.

Mountaire Farms, another recent waiver recipient (and the subject of a recent New Yorker exposé), has a past that includes racial and environmental injustices. The company’s Lumber Bridge, North Carolina plant had two separate settlementsinvolving retaliation against Black workers for speaking out about racism on the job. But these allegations didn’t stop Mountaire Farms’ owner and chairman from donating to the campaign of a New Jersey congressional candidate who was rejected by the Republican National Committee for spreading white nationalist propaganda on social media.

Since the start of the pandemic, the company’s Latinx contract workers have demanded the same protections that the company gives its full-time workers. It should be noted, however,  that even the full-time workers have said the company’s current COVID practices are scant, and they fear contracting the virus on the job.

Read more Civil Eats: COVID Brought SNAP Users Online. Advocates Say Mega-Retailers Are Selling Them Junk Food

Ensuring a safe and healthy workplace is the official duty of OSHA, but the federal agency still has not issued any mandatory protections to safeguard workers. Policymakers have begun to take action by proposing legislation to suspend line speed increases during the pandemic, and others have demanded that congressional leadership include line speed reform in the HEROES Act, next federal stimulus package. The AFL-CIO has also recently filed a suit requesting a court order (which was denied) to require OSHA to issue a safety standard for workers.

Despite these concentrated efforts, the Department of Labor has continued to refuse to issue any safety requirements that employers must implement to protect workers. Instead, the agency has only issued vague voluntary guidance that is not enforceable. And, just last month, Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia testified that OSHA has only issued one citation related to COVID-19.

How exactly the decision to allow some facilities to speed up the line was impacted by the poultry industry isn’t clear. But the National Chicken Council—a group whose member include some of the nation’s largest chicken producers—petitioned to get the line speed increased back in 2017.

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to sweep the nation, frontline workers—many of whom are women of color—have kept us fed, delivered our goods, and kept us safe while facing the risk of getting sick themselves. Even in “normal” times, poultry workers have had to endure some of the most perilous job conditions in the country. The danger for them (and their families and communities) is even greater now.

Workers need safety standards that will protect them during and after the pandemic, including whistleblower protections, required social distancing, masks, personal protection equipment (PPE), paid leave, multi-lingual safety training, and premium pay, to name just a few. Allowing companies to speed up production lines sends the exact opposite message.

White House reignites GOP civil war: Kellyanne Conway throws Republican governors under the bus

White House adviser Kellyanne Conway appeared to signal a new shift in messaging on the coronavirus pandemic on Wednesday by throwing governors — particularly Republican allies of the president — under the bus.

Of course, this is a common tactic in President Donald Trump’s administration. As soon as it becomes convenient, abandon any allies and blame them for any mistakes.

But in this case, the attempt is so cynical and transparent to anyone with a long-term memory that it’s hard to believe it could work at all. Conway apparently wants us to forget Trump’s attitude toward the pandemic for the last three months. She made this clear as she blamed states for opening up too quickly and triggering a resurgence of the coronavirus, even though that’s exactly what Trump urged them to do.

“Some of these states blew through the phases, blew through our gated criteria, blew through our phases, and they opened up some of the industries a little too quickly, like bars,” she told a group of reporters. “Remember, the governors wanted complete latitude over when they would open their states. They pushed back heavily, handsomely, Republicans and Democrats, when it was falsely rumored that the president was going to be in charge of opening the states.”

“He encouraged them to open—” a reporter pointed out.

“But not everybody has,” she said. “And remember, he pushed back on the governor of Georgia, a Republican, who he frankly helped get elected, he pushed back on him early. And some people didn’t like that. But he did that, he said publicly to all of you: ‘I think it’s just a little too early. Why don’t we wait a little bit longer?’ So the president was already on the record doing that long before these other states decided whether they would open or not.”

In these remarks, Conway was trying to blatantly rewrite history. She’s right that on April 23, Trump told Gov. Brian Kemp he was moving too quickly to reopen Georgia. But that move was itself a reversal — Trump had been signaling in the days prior that he was eager to see states reopen.  Trump has already thrown his support behind anti-lockdown protesters, calling to “liberate” states from restrictive coronavirus countermeasures.

And while Trump did pump the brakes lightly that week, he soon aggressively jammed on the gas to reopen the country in contradiction of his administration’s own guidelines. The fact that the virus is now surging through the country and deaths from COVID-19 are rising for the third straight week in a row is a direct consequence of that recklessness.

It was clear at the time how reckless Trump was being, and experts across the country warned against it. But despite Conway’s denials, it was Trump himself who took the lead on reopening.

On April 28, Trump was already telling states to consider reopening schools.

On May 4, the Washington Post reported:

States across the country are moving swiftly to reopen their economies despite failing to achieve benchmarks laid out by the White House for when social distancing restrictions could be eased to ensure the public’s safety during the coronavirus pandemic.

These governors’ biggest cheerleader is President Trump.

A slew of states — such as Texas, Indiana, Colorado and Florida — have pushed forward with relaxing social distancing guidelines even as the number of people testing positive in many states has increased in recent weeks and testing continues to lag behind. White House recommendations released last month encouraged states to wait to see a decline in cases over a two-week period, as well as having robust testing in place for front-line workers before entering “Phase One” of a gradual comeback.

Texas and Florida are among the states that have since seen major spikes in cases and deaths.

And on May 22 — despite Conway claiming Trump cares about federalism and respecting states’ independence — Trump threatened to “override” any governor who did not permit religious services to return to their halls of worship. Experts have warned that such gatherings have many of the conditions most prone to allow rampant spread of the virus.

So there’s no getting away from it. However much Conway tries to lie and spin her way out of it, she admitted that the premature reopenings are to blame for the virus’s resurgence. And the blame for the push to reopen early — not to mention the failure to create an infrastructure for tracking and suppressing the virus — falls squarely on Trump’s shoulders.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accuses Texas Republican of joining in on harassment

Editor’s note: This story contains explicit language.

U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, R-Austin, is facing criticism from liberal firebrand U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, after she says he failed to step in during a heated exchange between Ocasio-Cortez and a Republican colleague on the steps of the U.S. Capitol on Monday.

Williams says he didn’t hear the exchange, which was overheard and reported on by a reporter from The Hill. But Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter that Williams is merely pretending not to have heard it and that he actually joined in the argument, yelling at her about “throwing urine.” During the argument, another Republican member of congress called Ocasio-Cortez a “fucking bitch,” The Hill reported.

“Gotta love Republican courage from Rep @RogerWilliamsTX: when he undeniably sees another man engaged in virulent harassment of a young woman, just pretend you never saw it in the most cartoonish manner possible and keep pushing,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

Heather Douglass, Williams’ communications director, said in a statement that the congressman neither participated in the exchange nor overheard what was said.

“Congressman Williams would have immediately condemned that type of language towards any colleague,” Douglass said.

According to The Hill report, U.S. Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Florida, approached Ocasio-Cortez on the Capitol steps and said she was “disgusting” and “out of your freaking mind” for suggesting that poverty and unemployment are causing an increase in crime in New York City during the pandemic. Ocasio-Cortez then told Yoho he was being “rude.”

Ocasio-Cortez then walked into the Capitol, while Yoho and Williams walked in the other direction as Yoho made the profane comment about Ocasio-Cortez, The Hill reported.

The Hill reported that Williams “was in a position to hear the entire back-and-forth.” But he told the publication that he wasn’t paying attention.

“I was actually thinking, as I was walking down the stairs, I was thinking about some issues I’ve got in my district that need to get done,” Williams told The Hill. “I don’t know what their topic was. There’s always a topic, isn’t there?”

Democrat Julie Oliver, who is challenging Williams in November, criticized him for not speaking up.

“It definitely wouldn’t be the first time that Roger Williams has lied or denigrated the poor, but this is absolutely beyond the pale,” Oliver tweeted.

El Paso’s Democratic former congressman Beto O’Rourke used the dust-up to urge his Twitter followers to support Oliver’s campaign.

“Let’s replace Roger Williams with someone we can be proud of,” the former U.S. Senate candidate and presidential hopeful tweeted.

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues. 

Politicians and business interests ignored health officials to control reopening. Cases exploded

Back in April, when public health officials were still helping lead Utah’s response to the coronavirus, the spread of the disease had slowed, stabilizing at fewer than 200 reported cases a day.

Then came a shift in power, and priorities.

State legislators who felt Gov. Gary Herbert was not moving quickly enough to lift restrictions on businesses created a commission to set guidelines to reopen. “It’s not meant to give economic outcomes a higher weight, but it is time to give them some weight,” said Sen. Daniel Hemmert, a Republican who sponsored the bill and took his seat on the commission alongside other politicians, bureaucrats and business leaders.

Email correspondence and interviews with more than a dozen state and local officials in Utah show that the health of the state’s businesses was prioritized over the health of the public, as officials stopped slowing the spread of the virus and instead calculated how many sick people its health system could bear.

Dr. Joseph Miner, executive director of the Utah Department of Health, told ProPublica that state leaders originally planned to relax restrictions as cases decreased. But “because of the concern that you can’t keep the economy closed this long,” they reopened before that happened and shifted their attention to how many cases hospitals and contact tracers could handle.

“We know there’s going to be increased cases. We just said, amongst ourselves, this is really what we’re addressing: our capacity to respond rather than decreasing numbers.”

With key health experts cut out of the decision-making process, including the state epidemiologist and local officials who were stripped of their ability to issue their own restrictions, the governor and the commission quickly swept aside restrictions meant to slow the virus’s advance in Utah. You can now hold indoor events with up to 3,000 people and outdoor events with up to 6,000. You can drink at bars, eat in restaurants and go to the movies.

People in Utah are going back to work; new unemployment claims from early July dropped 78% since the peak from early April, when most businesses were closed, and its unemployment rate is just above 5%, which is under half of the national average. Utah was considered one of the states best-prepared to weather the pandemic’s economic downturn. But experts say that rising infections could threaten any state’s recovery.

And in Utah, infections are rising. The percentage of tests that come back positive is at 10% as of July 13, compared with 3% to 5% in April. On July 14, the state reported its highest number of deaths on a single day since the pandemic began. Since late May, the seven-day average of daily case counts statewide has quadrupled.

Utah’s story is mirrored in states across the country, where leaders sidelined public health experts and forged ahead without meeting criteria scientists say are necessary to reopen. In Florida, the governor loosened restrictions as cases rose; Miami is now the national epicenter of the virus. Georgia left it up to businesses to decide how much to scale back service in the middle of a pandemic; South Carolina let the hospitality industry write its own reopening guidelines. The virus is now spreading uncontrolled in those two states, with some of the highest rates in the country. Texas, whose governor took advice on reopening from a panel stacked with corporate executives and business leaders, reopened restaurants and malls after reaching a record in daily deaths; its hospitals are now stretched to the brink.

Herbert’s office did not respond to questions about how he’s managed the pandemic. In an emailed statement, Jefferson Burton, the commission’s co-chair, said the group regularly reviews Utah’s reopening guidelines and makes changes based on new data, federal guidance and input from stakeholders. Decisions on when to lift restrictions are based on hospital utilization, infection growth rates and the number of tests performed, among other factors, the statement said. “There are not hard-and-fast data points that automatically trigger a move. … Rather, individual geographic areas are evaluated looking at their specific trends over time.”

Dr. Michael Good, CEO of University of Utah Health and the only physician on the commission, said the “goal has always been to slow the spread of the virus.” The commission is trying to balance decisions on reopening in a way that keeps infections low while not inadvertently causing other social and economic problems, he said.

Epidemiologists say that one of the biggest risks of reopening prematurely is that it suggests formerly banned activities are now safe. The family of a diabetic man who died after going to a party in Riverside County, California, said he had been careful until the government eased restrictions.

The timing of Utah’s spikes in cases clearly overlaps with the loosening of restrictions, said Dr. Emily Spivak, an infectious disease physician at University of Utah Health. People assumed the risk was over. Spivak has seen group barbecues and young people taking party trips to Lake Powell with “full-on 20-year-old summer social behavior.” Of course case numbers went up, she added. “It’s not rocket science.”

A shift in power

Initially, Utah acted decisively to try and stop the spread of the coronavirus. In March, working with health advisers, Herbert decided to shut down schools days before New York City and restricted businesses based on their level of risk. Restaurants could not offer dine-in service; gyms and salons were closed.

While Herbert refused to issue a statewide shutdown, saying he didn’t want to overrestrict less affected areas, mayors and local health officials wrote their own stay-at-home orders, which came with fines and even criminal penalties for violations. The state was a patchwork of legally binding rules, as The Salt Lake Tribune reported. “We give local control for the regional differences,” Herbert said at the time, “and I think we’ve struck the right balance.”

Senate President Stuart Adams, a Republican businessman, disagreed. On April 8, he confirmed that lawmakers would convene to address the pandemic and consider limiting the power of local governments, saying their rules were creating confusion. It was time, he told the local paper in Ogden, for “a new phase” focused on the economy.

Sen. Hemmert and Rep. Mike Schultz co-sponsored a bill to establish the Public Health and Economic Emergency Commission, a 10-member team that would guide the reopening and advise Herbert. Staff from the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget would provide support.

Apart from two health care system CEOs, none of the members had a medical or public health background. Among them: Adams, the two Republican legislators who sponsored the bill, the president and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and the CEO of the Larry H. Miller Group of Companies, which includes sports teams such as the Utah Jazz as well as a chain of Megaplex Theatres across the state.

By the time the commission assembled, there was a new leader in charge of the state’s coronavirus response.

Miner, a physician who had headed the state Health Department since 2015, has a lung condition and had been unable to attend in-person meetings. To be the “boots on the ground” for the the virus response, the governor appointed Burton, a retired military leader with no medical training who had experience in disaster management. Burton once headed Utah’s National Guard and is running for a seat in the state House of Representatives. While Miner said he has remained “very much involved,” he was not present, even virtually, for key decisions ProPublica asked about. He said he was briefed on outcomes by Burton’s deputy.

During the time that Burton has served as co-chair of the commission, the three legislators on the commission have donated (either personally or through their campaigns) a total of $4,000 toward his run for state office, one-fifth of what his campaign has raised. He won the Republican primary in June and has no Democratic challenger in the general election.

The governor’s office and a large team of advisers had createda color-coded system for reopening that could be turned up or down like a dial “based on the health risk.” The system had four levels that dictated how businesses could operate, labeled red (“high risk”), orange (“moderate risk”), yellow (“low risk”) and green (“new normal risk”). All of Utah was under the red designation in late April; each successive level would open more businesses and ease limitations.

The commission took the governor’s guidelines and added specific rules for every industry, including restaurants, schools, entertainment venues and religious services. Five days after the group was created, it recommended moving the state to orange.

Herbert accepted the plan and moved Utah to the “moderate risk” level on May 1. Hotels and gyms opened. Groups of 20 could congregate with masks and social distancing.

Another shift in “risk”

Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say one of the key factors for relaxing restrictions is evidence of a 14-day decline in new cases.

By May 12, cities and counties were expressing an interest in moving into the yellow, “low risk” level. Cases had plateaued, but had not dropped. Dr. Angela Dunn, the state epidemiologist, told KSL News Radio that on an “optimistic” timeline, some parts of the state might be ready to move into yellow on June 1.

But on May 14, just 13 days after moving the state into orange, the governor and the commission announced they were moving most of the state into the “low risk” level, on May 16. It was impossible to see, at that point, the full effects of the orange phase after half a month, because of the incubation period of the virus and the lag between symptoms, testing and test results.

Jenny Wilson, the mayor of Salt Lake County, petitioned to keep her county in orange; she noted that the active positive case rate there was several times higher than the state’s. She could have kept the restrictions before the bill creating the commission passed, but now she needed the governor’s approval. Herbert denied the appeal, but he approved similar petitions from the two largest cities in her county — Salt Lake City and West Valley City — and three other counties.

The rest of the state relaxed further into the phase labeled “low risk.” All businesses could resume with certain precautions. Public swimming pools opened; close-contact team sports were allowed with temperature checks. Restaurants could serve buffets.

“Speaking [with] my public health voice, I feel that this is a mistake,” Jennifer Dailey-Provost, a Democratic state representative who’s pursuing a doctorate in public health, tweeted in reaction. “To say I’m frightened is an understatement. I hope I’m wrong.”

Two weeks later, on May 27, cases began to surge.

A spokesman from the Salt Lake County Health Department said it’s hard to say if the county would have fewer cases today if the entire county (and not just two cities) had stayed in orange. Commuting patterns make it impossible to separate different municipalities, and the piecemeal approach left some streets orange on one side and yellow on the other.

County data shows that throughout June, on days with a particularly high number of new cases, more than half came from areas that went yellow before the mayor felt they were ready.

Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall said the commission has made it more cumbersome for local leaders to pass their own rules, but she gives the governor credit for allowing her city to remain in orange and approving the county’s mandate for wearing face masks in public.

One of the counties Herbert had allowed to stay in orange was Grand County, home to Arches National Park. But that changed on May 28. When local officials asked to maintain extra protections as they moved to yellow — such as leaving hotel rooms empty for 24 hours between bookings — the governor’s office denied the request.

The rural county has logged few cases, though it is impossible to tell how many tourists may have caught the virus there before returning home. Bradon Bradford, director of the Southeast Utah Health Department, which covers Grand County, said the local numbers started going up in July.

The commission’s top-down approach is “uncharacteristic” of Utah, said Kirk Benge, who leads the Public Health Department for San Juan County in the southeastern corner of the state. “Most politicians claim that they like local authority and they like local decisions. In an emergency, to immediately strip that … I felt, was a mistake at the time.”

A mysterious decision

Top health officials and other legislators have little insight into the commission’s actions. Miner told ProPublica he has never attended a meeting. Nor has Dunn, the state epidemiologist. Both are part of a work group that provides input on what activities are allowed under each phase, but they aren’t involved in the final decisions of when and how restrictions are loosened.

Dailey-Provost, the legislator with public health training, said her offers to help and suggest health experts went nowhere. She co-authored a study in April that predicted how coronavirus cases would peak in Utah. Reality has outstripped the study’s worst projections.

One of the commission’s most significant decisions occurred in late May, when they suggested redefining the yellow phase, which capped gatherings at 50 people, to allow indoor gatherings of 3,000 and outdoor gatherings of 6,000.

The proposal caught Dunn and other health officials off guard. They discussed it at their work group meeting of health and business experts. Burton’s deputy, Richard Saunders, who often attends commission meetings, was also present.

Benge, the health officer for San Juan County, said he was “100% against” the change. Many businesses were still transitioning into the yellow phase and hadn’t had time to open up, Benge said, so it was too early to loosen the guidelines any further. Dunn and Miner shared similar concerns.

Miner said he recalls the group was being asked to figure out how to implement the change as safely as possible. He said they concluded that if the venues were required to track where everyone sat, at least they could do contact tracing if anyone got sick.

The numbers were headed in the wrong direction. A day earlier, on May 28, the Tribune reported the biggest single-day spike in new cases statewide, as well as an outbreak in a nursing facility that infected more than half the residents. One county in northern Utah saw a 33% increase in cases.

Health officers fretted about the decision in emails released to ProPublica.

“This change happened on a timeline contrary to my recommendations and the recommendations of the state epidemiologist and other health officers,” Benge wrote to his county health board.

“I don’t think we’ll need to move to Green because it’s all being phased into Yellow,” Bradford wrote to other local health officials.

“So who is going to count to see when they reach 6001 participants?” another officer replied.

Herbert accepted the commission’s changes in June.

Jordan Mathis, the officer for the TriCounty Health Department that oversees Daggett, Duchesne and Uintah counties, said the numbers seemed arbitrary. “Why 3,000? Why 6,000? Where’d we pull those from?”

Good, the commission member, said he doesn’t recall the exact reasons behind those numbers, but those discussions “were occurring at a time when 999 out of 1,000 Utahns did not have a coronavirus infection,” he said. Today, the situation is more serious, with four times as many active cases as there were back then, he said. “Those are not the conversations we would be having today.”

Brian Hatch, the health officer for Davis County, sits on a medical team that is supposed to advise the commission. He doesn’t recall the commission ever asking for its advice on the phase guidelines. The medical team has focused on recommendations for high-risk residents who are especially vulnerable to COVID-19.

Hatch said the idea for 6,000 people outdoors might have come from his county. When the state moved to yellow, there was no reopening plan for Lagoon Amusement Park, the only amusement park in the state. The park owners worked with Hatch. They settled on 6,000 people, which is 15% of its usual capacity. With social distancing, mandated masks and other precautions like timed tickets, they could operate safely, Hatch said.

The park reopened Memorial Day weekend with the governor’s approval, a week before the commission meeting on May 29. A spokesman for the park said it reached the 6,000-person limit only a few times since opening. Hatch said there have been no outbreaks connected to the park, and having a large crowd dispersed outdoors is very different from cramming 3,000 spectators indoors. Since the risk of infection is much higher inside, “I’m concerned with 20 people together,” he said.

Hatch said he doesn’t know where the 3,000 number came from. Health officials couldn’t point to any recent events with thousands gathered indoors. A spokeswoman for the Larry H. Miller Group, whose CEO sits on the commission, said the company’s movie theaters have kept indoor crowds at 50 and have not hosted any sporting events at their large venues.

The indoor guidelines require assigned seating (to enable contact tracing) and masks whenever social distancing isn’t possible.

Dunn and Benge said masks alone aren’t enough. Masks need to be used in concert with distancing and hand washing, said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “(The commission is) using the masks as an excuse to break all the other science rules.”

The high risk of “low risk”

Shortly after the May 29 meeting where the work group discussed the changes to the yellow guidelines, the commission held its own meeting.

According to meeting minutes, the commission wanted to determine how and when the state could switch to green, the “new normal.” One of the people present was Burton’s deputy, Saunders, who had just attended the work group meeting with Dunn and Miner.

Saunders told commission members that the potential impact from recent events — including Memorial Day celebrations and the opening of the amusement park — would become clear in the coming week. He said epidemiologists in the state Health Department advised staying at yellow until June 30.

Adams motioned to move most of the state to green by June 5, as long as the data supported it. The transition meant large crowds could gather without assigned seating. Religious services would no longer require 6 feet of space between families and sports competitions could resume.

The six commission members who were present voted unanimously for the idea. They waited several days to announce the news.

Utah had cycled through two phase changes in one month. Dunn worried residents saw it as permission to abandon precautions like masks. After all, the yellow phase was labeled “low risk.”

“I am concerned that we are providing the public with false information regarding their risk for contracting COVID-19,” she wrote to Miner, Burton and others on June 1. “Our % positive is at 7%, just a short jump away from the 8% positive at the beginning of this outbreak when we were only testing hospitalized patients. Our growth rate is sharply increasing.”

The very next day, the commission said the state was ready to go to green.

When Benge heard the news, he told colleagues he was “concerned that the current ‘Phased Health Guidelines’ have gradually shifted at the state level, from being focused on protecting health to being more focused on protecting the economy.”

The commission acknowledged coronavirus cases “may continue to rise” as restrictions are lifted. But case numbers are “a poor indicator of health risk for all Utahns,” as 99% of COVID-19 patients recover, they said in a press release that cited low hospitalization rates, low death rates and increased testing and contact tracing. They called for a “smart” green level where everyone should still wear masks and stay socially distant.

They didn’t mention the racial disparities that persisted throughout the pandemic. Fourteen percent of Utah’s population is Latino, but they make up 40% of cases. The proportion of patients who die from the virus is three times as high for Native Americans as it is for white residents. Navajo Nation, which extends into Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, recently imposed stay-at-home orders over several weekends because of the worsening situation in surrounding areas. Most of the roads leading to Utah’s national parks go through the reservation, said Pete Sands, a spokesman for Utah Navajo Health Systems. So when residents or visitors refuse to take precautions, it directly affects Navajo citizens.

Too many states are letting their cases grow based only on health care capacity, said Benjamin, the American Public Health Association director. “Why open the economy and allow needless death and illness and disability … [when] this single-minded strategy is eroding the economy in the long term?” he said. “Sick people can’t work. People who are afraid to go out and shop [or] eat aren’t going to go out.”

Experts say there’s more at play than ensuring hospital beds; workers face personal protective equipment shortages and burnout. There’s no surefire way to prevent COVID-19 deaths, and many survivors are left with heart damage, scarred lungs, neurological problems and other long-term effects doctors are just beginning to understand.

A day after the commission’s announcement on June 2, Dunn told reporters that no community in Utah was ready for green.

Herbert waited until June 12 before moving one county to green. A week later, he approved requests from nine other counties to do the same.

As Herbert finalized the partial shift to green, Dunn sent an urgent memo to state and local health officials, which the Tribune published several days later on June 22.

“If we do not reach a rolling 7-day average of 200 [cases] per day by July 1, we need to move the entire state to orange,” Dunn wrote. “This will send the message to Utahns that this outbreak continues to be a serious problem.”

“This might be our last chance for course correction,” she warned. “Contact tracing and testing alone will not control this outbreak.”

Dunn recommended a statewide requirement for face masks. If that wasn’t possible, she wrote, “we need to be clear with the public about why decisions are being made lessening restrictions — economic, not health.”

Herbert said he appreciated Dunn’s analysis but would not close down the economy. The seven-day average stood at 485 cases per day.

Beyond capacity

By mid-July, the seven-day average had reached 650 cases per day.

A growing number of health and business interests want a statewide mask mandate. That includes the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and the Larry H. Miller Group, whose leaders sit on the commission. Adams has come out against the idea.

Herbert has required masks in state buildings and in K-12 schools starting this fall but stopped short of a blanket rule, citing individual freedom and local control. The issue has become so politicized in Utah that one county commissioner compared the idea of a mask mandate to Nazism. In Provo, residents crowded into a county commission meeting to protest the school mask requirement.

Darin Mellott, a real estate executive who serves on a separate economic task force on the pandemic, describes himself as an establishment Republican. But he personally feels masks are an easy way to stem the tide. “I think future generations, if we do nothing, are going to look back and say, ‘Why did you subject so many people … to this threat, because of some imagined threat to our liberty?'”

Mellott said Herbert has a tough balancing act — “I think we would be in a much worse situation if it weren’t for him” — but that the governor and other state leaders need to give more health professionals a seat at the table. “This is a war against the virus, and the medical professionals are the generals,” he said. “So listen to the generals.”

In a recent press conference, Herbert acknowledged that labeling the different phases based on risk might have given the public a false sense of security. He challenged residents to voluntarily wear masks and set a goal to keep average new cases below 500 a day by August 1. Herbert cited 800 a day as the absolute maximum the state can handle.

Dunn told ProPublica she suggested 200 cases a day because it allows the state to do contact tracing within 24 hours. Because of the lag time between infections and hospitalizations, any preventative measures taken today won’t have an effect for another two to four weeks, so there’s no time to lose. “You can’t wait until you’re already underwater,” she said.

The state is hiring more contact tracers, but can now handle only 300 cases a day.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Get over your Russia obsession, liberals: Vladimir Putin’s not responsible for America’s sorry state

A prerequisite for assimilation into American culture is delusion. Delusions of grandeur, delusions of superiority, delusions of invincibility — we’re all stocked up on those in the land of the free and home of the health insurance deductible. One of the principal tasks of the scholar or journalist in American culture is to find some justification for eliminating a clarifying vocabulary and replacing it with esoteric or academic terms that make the ugly sound pretty. Instead of “delusion” or “lie,” we might use the phrase, “American exceptionalism,” referring to the intellectual-yet-illiterate theory that the United States is inherently different from other nations. Ronald Reagan was the most effective propagator of the myth. With his “carny smile and a missile up his sleeve,” to quote songwriter Warren Haynes, he would spin childish yarns like, “America is a shining city on a hill,” and “Standing up for America means standing up for God.” 

God does have a sense of humor.

The United States presently is the exception among wealthy educated, and developed countries in its shocking failure to react with competence, discipline, and probity to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our case count escalates with no sign of slowing down, while hospitals in Arizona, Texas, Mississippi and Florida may be forced to turn away patients from their overwhelmed ERs and ICUs. The financial effects of the coronavirus compound to devastate millions of lives — all while Japan, Iceland, New Zealand, Italy, Germany and several other comparably civilized countries have more or less returned to pre-pandemic life.

After decades of refusing to construct a social welfare state while neglecting public health institutions and infrastructure — and after electing an ignorant and incoherent reality-TV grifter to oversee the executive branch of the federal government, with a stunning lack of imagination regarding what could go wrong — the bill has arrived at America’s doorstep. The “indispensable nation,” as everyone from Madeline Albright to Barack Obama liked to call it, will have to pay in treasure and blood.

Vladimir Putin, the latest incarnation of the Red Menace, warned Americans that they were arranging a rendezvous with disaster in 2013. As the Obama administration was considering a strike against Syria, and risking the country’s third war in 11 years, Putin moonlighted as a freelance writer for the New York Times. He concluded his op-ed against military intervention in Syria with a broad observation on American culture: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.” 

When the newest dangers of maintaining a foolish sense of superiority became manifest in 2016, many leading figures of the Democratic Party and popular media commentators responded not with critical self-examination of a society in free fall, but with a pitiful cop-out tactic familiar to any juvenile delinquent: “Putin did it!” 

It is undeniable that the president of Russia is an enemy of human rights, within his own country and abroad, whose strategic interests align with the support of reactionary regimes and nationalist movements across the world. The degradation of democracy and international alliances among free nations suits his purpose and advances his ambitions. It is also true that Russia is weak nation, desperately hanging on to its petro-economy and overextending itself with dubious misadventures in Ukraine and the Middle East.

According to mainstream analysis, Putin is also responsible for seemingly every political problem in the United States. From the election of Donald Trump to increasing polarization among the American public, Putin has orchestrated and is brilliantly executing a “Plot to Destroy Democracy,” to quote the book title of former intelligence officer and MSNBC contributor Malcolm Nance. 

Thanks to Putin paranoia and a bizarre attempt to resuscitate the Cold War, the Democratic Party and mainstream media outlets have taken a largely, and often justifiably, bored public through a series of supposedly “shocking” Russia-related stories: Putin’s “interference” in the 2016 election, which was little more than a Facebook advertising campaign; the extended yawn of the Mueller investigation and report of Trump’s threat to withhold military aid from Ukraine, without anyone asking why the U.S. is so deeply involved in a border dispute over Crimea in the first place; and the absurd Russian “bounty” scandal.

The deflection of American failures onto Putin paranoia reached its nadir when Hillary Clinton accused Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Hawaii Democrat and U.S. Army combat veteran, of acting on Putin’s behalf during her campaign for the presidency. The evidence against Gabbard was nothing more than her critical views on U.S. foreign policy and militarism. These completely unmerited accusations, parroted by purportedly smart reporters and analysts, brought to mind the opening lines of Warren Zevon’s classic, “Lawyers, Guns, and Money”: “I went home with a waitress, the way I always do/ How was to know she was with the Russians too?” 

Gabbard was attempting to provoke Americans to reconsider their bellicose posture toward the rest of the world, and in the process, calculate the losses of our nation’s ongoing wars, drone strikes, special forces raids and other violent interventions in every corner of the planet.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both having studied the collapse of ancient Rome, concluded that it was impossible to simultaneously maintain a functional republic at home and an expanding empire abroad. Vladimir Putin is not responsible for the American establishment of 800 military bases, the $6.4 trillion the U.S. has wasted on post-9/11 wars, or the obtuse insistence that America enjoys a magical exception from the observable truths of history, the demise of past empires included. 

The murky allegation that Putin was paying Taliban fighters $100,000 for every U.S. solider or Marine they killed aroused considerable hysterics, all of which avoided the crucial question: Why is the U.S. still in Afghanistan, especially after the Washington Post’s unearthing of the “Afghanistan Papers” proved that political and military planners have acknowledged for many years that the war has served no purpose? 

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., proposed a measly 10 percent reduction in the bloated Pentagon budget, and most Democrats — their campaign coffers full of defense industry cash — rejected it. Putin is not responsible for the destructive influence of the “military-industrial complex,” an anti-democratic and parasitical leech on government, culture, and infrastructure that President Dwight Eisenhower first admonished in 1961.  

Images of unmarked and unidentifiable federal centurions beating and arresting protesters in Portland, Oregon, with no apparent provocation, have shocked even the typically timid U.S. press. But there is little acknowledgement that Trump’s fascistic move is possible only because of a provision in the bipartisan Homeland Security Act of 2002 authoring then President George W. Bush to deputize agents of any federal agency to use force to protect federal property. Vladimir Putin did not write, sponsor or vote for that bill, nor did he influence the Obama administration to ratify its most dangerous elements every year in a series of National Defense Authorization Acts.

One of the most persuasive and applicable arguments Eisenhower made against the rising power and influence of the military-industrial complex is that resources are finite, and the development of a garrison state will inevitably diminish the social welfare state. “Every gun that is made signifies a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed,” he warned.

He could have easily added, “those who are sick and not treated.” The inadequacies of American society, the ineptitude of American institutions, and the insidiousness of American priorities become hideously clear as the federal government continues to spend hundreds of billions on weaponry, but watches as doctors, nurses and other health care workers treat COVID-19 patients without sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment.

The lucid nightmare of Donald Trump’s presidency may well have received assistance from a Russian-directed social media campaign of “fake news,” but the effects of Putin’s schemes cannot compare to the subversive influence of voter suppression. Assaults on voting rights in Wisconsin prevented 200,000 voters — mostly poor, and disproportionately Black — from exercising the franchise in 2016. Republican officials in North Carolina, another swing state, were brazen enough to boast that their suppression campaign lowered voter turnout among Black residents by 8.5 percent. 

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of what amounts to a poll tax that Florida officials will use to prevent ex-felons from voting in 2020. Democrats could aggressively present the case for voting rights, and attempt to expose how Republicans, often by their own admission, win by preventing Democratic constituencies from casting votes. Instead, they have consistently pursued the Ian Fleming story of Russian sabotage.

As far as those Kremlin-funded Facebook advertisements are concerned: Why are so many Americans gullible enough to believe outrageous or laughable lies? Putin did not degrade the public education system — cutting civics, history and social studies courses from curricula — and did not create an anti-intellectual culture that leaves people susceptible to quack claims and crude lies.

Putin’s malevolent opposition to gay rights, his oppression of journalists and dissidents, and his encouragement of illiberal parties across the world certainly make him an international villain. But the posture that everything was going swimmingly with American democracy before he and Julian Assange screwed it up is willful blindness and stupidity. As long as liberals obsess over Russia, they will remain unable or unwilling to confront the escalating crises of their own country. 

Unless, of course, they are correct about all this, and Putin really is responsible for America’s failure to competently respond to the coronavirus pandemic, its refusal to protect the voting rights of millions of its citizens, and its inability to provide basic social services and resources for the poor and working class, while it conducts multiple wars with no clear purpose. But if Putin can do all that by social media memes, wouldn’t that make America even weaker than it already appears?

GOP’s next COVID-19 relief package will “fast-track Social Security & Medicare cuts”

Shortly after publicly ditching one attack on Social Security—the payroll tax cut—Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed Thursday that the Republican coronavirus relief package will include legislation sponsored by Sen. Mitt Romney that one advocacy group described as an “equally menacing” threat to the New Deal program.

In a speech on the Senate floor, McConnell touted Romney’s TRUST ACT as “a bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Senate Democrats, to help a future Congress evaluate bipartisan proposals for protecting and strengthening the programs that Americans count on.”

Ostensibly an effort to “rescue” America’s trust fund programs, Romney’s bill—first introduced last October with the backing of three Democratic senators—would initiate a secretive process that could result in cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits, a longtime objective of lawmakers like the Utah Republican.

Romney celebrated the inclusion of his bill Thursday and pointed to statements praising the legislation from a slew of right-wing advocacy groups, including the Koch-funded organization Americans for Prosperity.

The Utah Republican’s bill currently has 13 Senate co-sponsors, five of whom are members of the Democratic caucus. Last month, as Common Dreams reported, 30 House Democrats joined 30 of their Republican colleagues in endorsing the TRUST Act.

“Donald Trump and his stooges in the Senate can’t stop trying to rob us of our Social Security,” Alex Lawson, executive director of advocacy group Social Security Works, told Common Dreams in response to McConnell’s remarks. “They will use every opportunity and every crisis—including the mass death and economic carnage from Covid—as cover for their sick desire to destroy our Social Security system.”

If passed, Romney’s bill would give the Treasury Department 45 days to deliver a report to Congress on America’s “endangered” trust funds. Congress would then set up one “rescue committee” per trust fund with a mandate to craft legislation that—in the words of Romney’s office—”restores solvency and otherwise improves each trust fund program.”

Legislation proposed by the committees would receive expedited consideration in the House and Senate—meaning no amendments would be permitted. Any bill would still need 60 votes to clear the upper chamber.

“This would allow benefit cuts to be fast-tracked through Congress,” said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. “Seniors and people with disabilities need their benefits boosted, not slashed. Like payroll tax cuts, the TRUST Act is bad medicine for everyday Americans struggling to stay financially afloat, especially during the Covid crisis.”

Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, warned the TRUST ACT is “a way to undermine the economic security of Americans without political accountability.”

“Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and all congressional Republicans have made their priorities clear,” said Altman. “In the midst of a catastrophic pandemic, they should be focused on protecting seniors, essential workers, and the unemployed. Instead, they are plotting to use the cover of the pandemic to slash Social Security.”

“Democrats must stand united,” Altman continued, “and unequivocally reject any package that includes the TRUST Act.”

Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee and co-sponsor of legislation that would expand benefits, called Romney’s TRUST Act “a direct assault on Social Security” that must be opposed.

“During a pandemic, people are relying on Social Security now more than ever,” Larson said in a statement Thursday. “These are Americans’ earned benefits. Cutting them will only further hurt the economy.”

As part of their effort to hold Republican lawmakers accountable for pushing Social Security cuts, Social Security Works and Tax March on Thursday launched mobile billboards targeting GOP senators in Iowa, Maine, Arizona, and North Carolina.

“Senate Republicans are rubber stamps who are happy to raid our Social Security system to please Trump,” said Lawson. “We say to both Trump and Senate Republicans: Hands off our earned benefits!”

What is the fate of Black Lives Matter protest murals?

Blane Asrat did not expect to see her artwork plastered across the front page news.

On June 7, she went to downtown Oakland with a friend to help clean up after a protest only to see artists turning boarded-up storefronts into plywood canvases. Asrat, an aspiring illustrator, asked a nearby artist for some paint and began work on a portrait of a protester on the side of the Pacific Range Foods on 12th and Franklin Street. As she painted, onlookers took pictures, and one found its way onto the front page of The Mercury News.

A couple days later, Rachel Wolfe-Goldsmith (another Black artist who’s been in Oakland for nearly a decade) helped organize Oakland’s Black Lives Matter street mural on downtown Oakland’s 15th Street. That day she pulled out the paint she keeps in her car and did an impromptu mural of a Black woman protesting.

Asrat’s and Wolfe-Goldsmith’s pieces still stand. But eventually, as cities continue to open up, panels will get taken down, leaving artists with some daunting questions: Where will their art go? And who owns it? Artist and gallery owner Randolph Belle of Oakland’s Black Cultural Zone (BCZ), an Oakland-based organization dedicated to promoting community projects, said there’s a debate about whether the artist or whoever put up the actual plywood has the final say.

Following a tradition of protest murals  

In the protests that followed the killing of George Floyd in May, Belle wasn’t surprised to see the boarded-up storefronts, but he was surprised by the overwhelming response from artists — often going up spontaneously, guerrilla-style. “People literally just immediately went out there and started painting,” he told Salon.

Oakland, which has a sizable Black population, is known for its artistic – and political – culture; a similar art response followed in the wake of Oscar Grant’s killing by police in a BART station in 2009. 

But Black artists responding in the moment isn’t a recent phenomenon. 

Tuliza Fleming, a curator of American Art at the National Museum of African American History and Culture, said that the tradition of mural-making as political commentary and expression in African-American communities runs deep, going back to the Harlem Renaissance in the early 1900s. Black artists like Aaron Douglas were some of the first to use murals as a mode to encapsulate the Black experience and to push back against oppression.

In 1967, the Organization for Black Culture (OBAC) collectively painted the “Wall of Respect” on the side of a building in Chicago with 50 portraits of famous Civil Rights figures from Malcolm X to Aretha Franklin, without the landlord’s permission. However, the mural was destroyed in a fire in the building in 1971, and the city razed the neighborhood. The mural was lost. 

Safeguarding the artwork

BCZ doesn’t want Oakland artists to lose their work, so they’ve presented an immediate solution. 

Alongside other Black-led organizations and Black artists, BCZ is working with Oakland Endeavors, Oakland Art Murmur, and the Oakland Museum to de-install panels and store them in facilities throughout the city. And while many museums throughout the country are making efforts to highlight African-American history, the Oakland Museum and other ally organizations are taking their orders from BCZ when it comes to the influx of plywood murals and other street art in the city.

“We wanted to set it up such that we [BCZ] could create the infrastructure because the institutions typically have the infrastructure,” Belle said.

The BCZ is neither curating nor collecting but is currently storing 20 de-installed panels and anticipating more. The group has an online form for businesses, developers, and landlords to identify murals and artwork, and to notify BCZ when the panels get taken down so that the group can track the work, safely store it, and contact the artist(s) about desired next steps. 

Oakland Endeavors, one of the organizations working with BCZ (Endeavors also worked with Wolfe-Goldsmith on Oakland’s downtown Black Lives Matter street mural) is standing by to store more, along with the other partner organizations.

Eventually, BCZ anticipates cataloguing and storing hundreds of panels.

But not every artist and activist in Oakland wants an organization or institution-led approach. Some locals took matters into their own hands early on. 

Following rumors about nonprofits and museums getting ready to de-install and archive art, Guerrilla Pump, an Oakland artist and community organizer, started a Signal chat called “Artist Alliance” for artists to safely discuss the future of their work. Guerrilla then launched a Google form where artists can list their contact information and details about their artwork. The form has gotten responses from 60 local artists so far. 

Guerrilla — who said they met with an intellectual property rights lawyer in June — emphasized that while the businesses or other buildings may own the plywood, the images and the artwork belong to the artists. 

Similar to Guerrilla’s collective efforts to track down work, Oakland Endeavors sent out photographers to document storefront murals and uploaded the photos in an online gallery in early June. They also have a form where artists can reach out to claim work and community members can submit photos of unidentified or newly identified work. Endeavors also said that it plans to add artists’ Instagram handles and even Venmo accounts in the hopes of getting artists noticed and paid.

Preserving art beyond Oakland

In June, Eve Ortega was walking with her daughter in Foley Square where countless murals had sprung up on plywood boards there and throughout lower Manhattan. Worrying about the art’s future, she reached out to a few local arts organizations and founded The Plywood Project, a nonprofit partnered with already existing organizations and initiatives to commission and preserve street art and murals by Black and POC artists.

She thinks it’s important that this is a grassroots movement, with artists at the forefront.

“We’re in a moment that is long overdue of really questioning power structures, and the lens is understandably racial,” Ortega said, “That lens now is forcing us to look at all the ways in which power is skewed.” 

While the Project’s initial plan was to commission new work for the plywood boards — on July 20 Plywood (along with partners like Street Theory) installed a new plywood mural by Brooklyn-artist Sophia Dawson that reimagines a childhood photo of police-killing victim Eric Garner — it’s also trying to protect existing work. This week, along with the Artists Rights Society, The Plywood Project will launch an open source Google document where artists can upload information about their work in an effort to protect their intellectual property.

Over in the country’s capital, following some artists’ initial response, the Downtown D.C. Business Improvement District had 42 artists and volunteers come out to paint plywood murals downtown on June 7. The result was 31 pieces that were then displayed in an outdoor exhibit in Gallery Place. Only nine still stand; as businesses start to open, plywood will continue to come down.

Unlike Oakland, D.C. museums haven’t waited to acquire the art. So far pieces have been donated to the National Building Museum, the SAAM, and the soon-to-open Planet Word Museum. The National Museum of African American History and Culture at the Smithsonian has also expressed interest.

It’s an ongoing effort in many U.S. cities, but Oakland, with its predominantly Black and grassroots-led approach, seems to offer a more cohesive model.

Furthering the mural movement

While the guerrilla-style response from artists has slowed, many cities are working to commission murals on businesses and other spaces. Endeavors Oakland has worked on four approved murals with Black artists so far, with the hope to commission more. 

One is an upcoming mural on Tribune Tower by Wolfe-Goldsmith that depicts the Black woman as goddess. 

“It’s not important whether it’s a guerrilla movement or not,” she said. “It’s important that the artwork continues to make people uncomfortable.”

Asrat feels the work is meant for the public eye. “The power of any mural really is that it becomes a part of a neighborhood,” she said, “and a neighborhood is the place where any movement starts.” Asrat is also collecting Black artists work on her website Picture Blackness

According to Guerrilla, all of the artists in their ongoing Signal chat have different ideas about where they want to see their art end up. Some want it in a museum, some want to bring it home, and others don’t have an opinion. If Guerrilla had it their way, the artists would come together and burn their work in a symbolic statement. “It would’ve given artists ownership of their work and it would’ve shown everyone that you can’t own s**t that’s not yours.”

The panels’ final home is still to be determined. Some of them may appear in an outdoor exhibit at an East Oakland lot that BCZ is currently using for food giveaways and other community projects. Regardless, this effort could extend the lifetime of many of these reactionary, in-the-moment murals. But Belle is primarily focused on protecting Black artists and keeping the movement going. 

“We have to be very, very efficient in this because we don’t know how long this moment is going to last,” Belle said. A resident of Oakland for 30 years, he’s seen this kind of rush for change before and knows how ephemeral it can be.

The younger generation, however, is determined to effect change.

“Our generation is done,” Wolfe-Goldsmith said. “We’re not going to continue to live in the same system that we’ve been living in.”

Paul McCartney’s “Flaming Pie” burns ever brighter in this new reissue, a completist’s dream

In 1960, John Lennon’s art school friend Stu Sutcliffe coined the Beatles‘ name (originally, as Beatals) in tribute to Buddy Holly and the Crickets. By 1961, Lennon had grown tired of explaining the roots of the group’s name, with its manifold permutations. In a humorous story for Mersey Beat, he famously claimed that the word had come to him “in a vision—a man appeared on a flaming pie and said unto them, ‘from this day on you are Beatles with an A.'”

For his tenth solo album, Paul McCartney drew his title from Lennon’s whimsical story, honoring his fallen mate and christening his most sentimental post-Beatles release in the same breath. This month, “Flaming Pie” enjoys deluxe treatment as the latest installment in the Paul McCartney Archive Collection, complete with a host of unreleased demos, bonus tracks, and outtakes.

The 1997 LP sounds as luminous as ever, thanks to Jeff Lynne’s original sterling production and to one of McCartney’s most well-rounded collections of new material since, arguably, 1982’s “Tug of War.” The album features guest appearances from a wide array of musicians and personalities associated with the Cute Beatle’s career, including Lynne, who had recently produced the Beatles’ “Free as a Bird” and “Real Love” singles for the Anthology project, along with wife Linda, son James, Ringo Starr, George Martin and Steve Miller.

The heartfelt nature of the project is understandable. For one thing, producer George Martin was visibly slowing down — his orchestration for “Somedays” would mark one of his final projects leading up to 2006’s “Love.” Meanwhile, McCartney celebrates the life of Starr’s late ex-wife Maureen in “Little Willow,” as well as his incipient friendship and early songwriting with Lennon in “The Song We Were Singing.” Most importantly, McCartney was confronting the specter of wife Linda’s mortality. She had first been diagnosed with breast cancer in 1995, and by the advent of “Flaming Pie,” her cancer had metastasized to her liver. She would succumb in April 1998 at age 56, leaving her husband wounded and bereft in his grief. For nearly 30 years, she had been his beloved partner and collaborator.

With its inclusion in the Paul McCartney Archive Collection, “Flaming Pie” burns ever brighter. McCartney’s pop sensibilities are still in vogue, as ably revealed in “The World Tonight,” “Beautiful Night,” and the title track. Music lovers will enjoy the opportunity to trace the LP’s production from the demo stage through the studio and production phases. In contrast with previous entries in the collection, “Pie” is a completist’s dream. Nearly every track is represented by its original home recording, along with McCartney’s acoustic and rough mixes, followed by Lynne’s production work at the Mill, McCartney’s home studio in Hogg Hill Mill, Sussex.

The success of each and every entry in the Paul McCartney Archive Collection is determined by the quality of the original release, and in this case, “Flaming Pie” doesn’t disappoint. Released in McCartney’s 55th year, the LP finds him at an understandably nostalgic, albeit painful crossroads. Life with Linda was clearly growing more precious by the day — “Flaming Pie” would mark the last time she recorded backing vocals for her husband’s work — and the recent Beatles Anthology retrospective was an unmistakable harbinger of time’s relentless passage.

“Flaming Pie” also finds McCartney’s voice beginning to show his age. From the Beatles’ mid-period through the early 1980s, his pipes were one of pop music’s most enduring and steadfast treasures. But even with the perceptible marks of time, McCartney’s vocals on “Flaming Pie” exhibit a unique tenderness among all of his solo efforts. Take “Calico Skies,” one of the most moving entries in his voluminous catalogue. “I will hold you for as long as you like,” he sings. “I’ll hold you for the rest of my life.” In a single couplet, the heart and soul of his corpus is delivered in beautiful, unvarnished style.

How calling someone a “class reductionist” became a lefty insult

Every generation of activist has its own accompanying insult. Leftists in the past might have been slandered as “petty bourgeois” or “revisionists”; these days, calling someone a “neoliberal” is fighting words. More recently, the accompanying charge is likely to be “class reductionist.”

That accusation reemerged recently when the Philadelphia chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) — the largest socialist organization in the country, which has been growing rapidly for the past few years and was a major organizing force for the Bernie Sanders campaign — issued a statement on the murder of George Floyd. As protests against police violence were spreading across the nation with dizzying speed, the Philly DSA said: “We are outraged at George Floyd’s murder at the hands of the Minneapolis police. Floyd’s killing and similar acts of violence stem from the brutalities and inequalities of U.S. society.”

The statement went on to explain the expansion of policing in terms of the decline in “good-paying jobs and social services” in the United States, and made a strong claim about its own importance: “As socialists, we are also uniquely positioned to expose the economic dimensions of these instances of state violence and to push for demands that address their underlying causes.” It concluded that the reigning demands for defunding the police were insufficient, and that achieving “racial and economic justice” meant “targeting the foundations of inequality” and creating “a more just society for all working people.”

To be fair, this statement, which was very brief, referred to real social problems and proposed some constructive solutions to them. It nevertheless immediately provoked a flurry of discontent among activists in DSA and the online commentariat. It wasn’t so much the content itself that many took issue with, but the fact that the statement appeared out of touch with what was happening on the ground.

For the protesters who had flooded the streets, racism was an obvious and fundamental cause of Floyd’s murder, and it was deeply embedded in the structure and practices of the U.S. police. Referring this problem to economic inequality, which socialists were supposedly “uniquely positioned to explain” — despite the fact that they had been totally taken by surprise by the wave of protests — seemed oblivious at best, and condescending at worst.

The Philly DSA statement also didn’t appear to actually take a position on the protests themselves, which was jarring to those who saw the burgeoning movement as a promising political development in the forbidding context of the pandemic. On the basis of firsthand observation, I can attest that while some elements of the protests included liberal elites and nonprofit organizations which sought reconciliation with a more diverse ruling order, they also included a broad range of working-class youth who took up the slogan “Black Lives Matter” while targeting symbols of economic inequality — like banks, chain stores, and luxury boutiques — without guidance from pre-existing organizations.

Three days later Philly DSA posted an update, describing its initial statement as “a mistake that we deeply regret,” since it “did not sufficiently address the disproportionate impact of police violence on people of color, specifically Black Americans, and the significant anti-racist character of the protests.” But the charge had stuck.

The label “class reductionist” is frequently thrown around on the left today, but as was once true of the word “hipster,” it doesn’t appear to be a label anyone willingly accepts. In fact, Adolph Reed, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the classic study of post-segregation Black politics “Stirrings in the Jug,” has argued that class reductionism is nothing more than a myth.

What is class reductionism? The term is somewhat self-explanatory: it suggests a perspective which reduces all forms of social inequality to class. Concretely, this means that class reductionism is both a method (of analyzing everything in terms of class) and a program (proposing policies related only to class).

Some people — especially those who spend their entire political lives on the internet — proudly embrace the label, insisting that reducing everything to class is reasonable and desirable. However, the more serious people involved in these debates argue that class reductionism isn’t an accurate description of their perspective or anyone else’s. This is why Reed describes the whole category as a “myth.” It’s a myth in the sense that it’s a distortion of reality, but also in the sense that it’s a story we tell ourselves that makes certain aspects of our social and political lives seem natural.

Along these lines, when Reed argues that class reductionism is a myth, he means that no meaningful political tendency actually thinks that all social inequalities are reducible to class or that class-based reforms will solve every problem. (The extremely online people who do claim to be class reductionists apparently don’t count.) Reed also presents an explanation of why people believe in the myth — why they make this accusation, and whose interests the myth serves. All these steps make the argument somewhat complicated and convoluted, but it’s the most sophisticated response to the charge of class reductionism. So we’ll try to untangle it and reconstruct the strongest version of the argument, to assess what’s convincing about it and what isn’t.

If you want to understand what’s at stake in this seemingly abstract back-and-forth over the vague category of class reductionism, you just have to consider the debates over how Bernie Sanders addressed racial inequality in the country. Sanders’ policy platform, broadly, was class-oriented: create a welfare state and a progressive taxation structure that would move wealth from the top to the bottom, regardless of the gender or racial composition of those at the bottom. However, income deciles in the United States are not proportional: on average, women make less, as do people of color. Hence, one might argue (and many did) that Sanders’ policy platform was that of a class reductionist: it would not resolve inequalities that persist on gender and racial lines. In 2016, Hillary Clinton infamously (and disingenuously) challenged Sanders in this regard: “if we broke up the banks tomorrow… would that end racism?”

This was an indirect way of vilifying him as a class reductionist, and many observers directly invoked the label. At the time, this led to an emotionally charged discussion. Those who hurl the accusation claim their targets are denying or downplaying the significance of forms of oppression related to race, gender, and other social categories that aren’t strictly economic. Meanwhile, those accused of being class reductionists retort that their accusers are adopting a posture of social justice in order to rationalize the extreme economic inequality which our political system forbids us from questioning.

There is a historical basis for the accusation of class reductionism. In some cases, social movements around class have been racially exclusionary or have failed to build equality among their members. It’s also true that broad social reforms have sometimes left behind sections of the population who are subjected to special forms of discrimination.

However, this argument gives an incomplete and distorted picture of history, so when Reed characterizes it as a myth, he makes two historical points in response. First, labor and socialist movements played a fundamental role in the history of struggles against racism, because they had a broad egalitarian vision of a just society, and because equality within the working class enhanced its collective solidarity and power. (A recent study bears this out.) There are certainly examples of their failures to adequately deal with problems of race, but this doesn’t change the overall importance of labor and socialist organizations in the movements against racism, from the Communist Party’s campaigns against lynching in the South to the labor coalitions orchestrated by union organizers and civil rights leaders like A. Philip Randolph that were at the core of the Civil Rights Movement.

Second, the populations who are assigned racial categories like “Black” are disproportionately working class, so it’s totally illogical to represent economic redistribution as being somehow against their interests. As Reed puts it: “African Americans, Latinos, and women are disproportionately poor or working class due to a long history of racial and gender discrimination in labor and housing markets.” Posing racial disparity and economic inequality as somehow disconnected, separate issues will lead to a political program that totally leaves behind the majority of Black people and other working people of color — no matter how much the rhetoric may draw on current languages of social justice.

In other words, if you disconnect racial disparity and economic inequality, as Clinton and other liberals have, you end up with what Reed characterizes as “neoliberal social justice.” This position amounts to arguing that “society would be fair if 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources so long as the dominant 1% were 13% Black, 17% Latino, 50% female, 4% or whatever LGBTQ, etc.” By framing justice in terms of equitable distribution, the very fact that there is a dominant 1% of the population goes unquestioned. The only political program would be diversifying the elite, rather than ending its monopoly on wealth and power. (From time to time, I ask students if this is the model of social justice they would embrace. The question is always answered with a long silence.)

So it’s true that when liberals make the accusation of class reductionism, they’re often falling back on historical distortions and logical fallacies. If this was all there was to Reed’s argument, it would be a pretty clear-cut refutation of the way liberal elites try to rationalize economic inequality. However, Reed’s argument goes much further than this, and that’s where we start to run into trouble.

The trouble starts to emerge when we look at the issue of police violence. Economic inequality plays a huge role in police violence, a fact which liberal elites constantly ignore. A recent study of police killings by Harvard epidemiologist Justin Feldman shows that “rates of police killings increase in tandem with census tract poverty for the overall population.” But at the same time, poverty doesn’t entirely explain the fact that Black people are killed by police at a rate that is double that of whites: “Higher poverty among the Black population accounts for a meaningful, but relatively modest, portion of the Black-white gap in police killing rates.”

So we have to consider two crucial points here: first of all, any antiracist political position that isn’t also tied to an economic analysis clearly can’t adequately explain or respond to police violence. But at the same time, a pure class-based analysis clearly isn’t enough, because it doesn’t explain the undeniable racial disparities.

It’s absolutely true that you can’t understand any form of social inequality in capitalist societies without considering class, too, and the role it plays. But Reed takes a huge leap from there, and makes two arguments that are, I think, a bridge too far.

First, Reed argues that the very category of racism is useless for understanding problems like police violence. Second, he argues that antiracism isn’t a form of opposition to the status quo, or even just a basic aspect of human decency. In Reed’s view, antiracism is intrinsically an aspect of “neoliberal social justice,” which focuses on racial disparity as a way of rationalizing class inequality.

For example, in his article on police violence, Reed acknowledges that “available data… indicate, to the surprise of no one who isn’t in willful denial, that in this country Black people make up a percentage of those killed by police that is nearly double their share of the general American population.”

But after making this observation, Reed goes on to argue that “reducing discussion of killings of civilians by police to a matter of racism clouds understanding of and possibilities for effective response to the deep sources of the phenomenon.”

Why would calling attention to this fact — and just generally using the word “racism” — cloud our understanding of police violence and prevent us from responding to it effectively?

Reed cites statistics which suggest that the incidences of police violence can be better explained by their concentration in lower-income neighborhoods, and it’s clear that this class aspect is essential for understanding police violence. But using that as a basis for dismissing the explanatory role of “racism” altogether simply doesn’t follow. First of all, as we’ve already seen, while economic inequality is certainly part of the explanation, it doesn’t entirely explain the racial disparity.

Second, if you reframe racial disparities in class terms — by arguing that the problems generally ascribed to racism really result from the fact that Black people are disproportionately represented among the poor — you’re just deferring the actual explanation. You now have to explain why Black people are disproportionately represented among the poor. This means referring to the long process by which racial and class categories were mutually constituted in American history, starting from slavery and evolving over the development of American capitalism, continuing into the present as the result of the discrimination in labor and housing markets that Reed himself points to.

There’s no reason why this kind of attention to the causal factor of racism — even when it operates in a way that’s relatively autonomous from the economic — should undermine an attention to class.

In fact, this is precisely the fallacy of the liberal elites who make the accusation of class reductionism: that talking about race and talking about class are ultimately incompatible. In other words, Clinton’s rejoinder to Sanders — that “breaking up the banks” wouldn’t end racism — is wrong. Banks have played a fundamental role in maintaining racial disparities in wealth — for example, through discriminatory lending practices — and their nationalization would go a long way towards overcoming those disparities.

In a similar way, Reed goes as far as to argue that a politics of antiracism can’t successfully counteract police violence, because focusing on the racial disparity will lead to two mistakes. First, it will prevent people from addressing the root problem, which is how police violence targets the poor and enforces the upward distribution of wealth. Second, it will prevent people from building broader, cross-racial class-based coalitions that can respond to the overall patterns of police violence.

But these points don’t actually follow from the premises. Pointing out a disparity doesn’t commit you to reducing your politics to overcoming only this disparity, any more than supporting a workplace action for safer conditions at a meatpacking plant prevents you from supporting an action for higher wages at an Amazon warehouse. Along these lines, poor whites who are harmed by police stand to benefit considerably from movements against police violence, even if these movements start by pointing out a racial disparity.

We can sum up these problems by saying that when Reed sets out to refute the myth of class reductionism, he starts by pointing out there’s actually no incompatibility between addressing racial inequality and economic inequality. But then when he proceeds to reject racism as an analytic category, and dismisses the politics of antiracism, he ends up mirroring the liberal separation between race and class.

But there’s a second problem here, which has to do not with the relation between race and class, but the way we think about class itself. Since class is just assumed to be a solid foundation — something that’s straightforwardly universal, and the basis of strong, inclusive coalitions, in contrast to the supposedly thorny and divisive category of race — the contradictions of class politics often go unnoticed.

In other words, the whole debate about “class reductionism” turns out to be a red herring. In fact, if the arguments made against antiracism were applied consistently, similar claims could be made about working-class struggles — that they’ve been irredeemably bureaucratic and sectional, easily co-opted by elites, and have revolved around shoring up a working-class “identity” within the capitalist system rather than eliminating class inequality. That is, providing better representation for the working class and supporting it with public programs doesn’t change the fact that people are forced to work for wages for their survival while the owners of wealth plunder and destroy the planet to accumulate profit.

Like the critique of antiracism, this is a somewhat one-sided interpretation, and deals with big-picture problems that may seem pretty distant from our everyday political concerns. But it does show us important contradictions and challenges for class struggle that can’t be ignored. It also points to long-term strategic questions that influence our short-term tactics. In the short term, arguing for a return to class-based politics doesn’t provide any guarantee that there will be solidarity across different sectors of the working class, that labor organizations will really represent the interests of their rank and file, or that politicians will pursue reforms that actually benefit their working-class constituencies.

After all, history demonstrates that labor struggles don’t intrinsically lead to solidarity and equality. They can limit their scope to a particular layer of workers and exclude other workers on the basis of differences like skill level. This is typical of craft unionism, for example, which organizes workers in particular trades rather than whole industries, but it’s rooted in the overall way that unions are forced to operate within the logic of capitalist competition. Workers are compelled by the market to act as commodity owners who bring their labor-power to trade. From the perspective of the market unions are “firms” which set prices and conditions and generate an administrative personnel to oversee transactions and negotiate contracts. This is the underlying basis for the “business unionism” that’s been so damaging to the labor movement.

So an active struggle has to be waged within class organizations to build unity and equality, as Jane McAlevey describes in her account of a hospital strike in Nevada. An important risk in labor actions at workplaces like hospitals is that they’ll be limited to the “professionalized” layer of nurses — but this strike represented the whole range of workers at the hospital, from nurses to cleaners to cooks, because labor organizers made a point of “developing workplace solidarities that bridge intra-class differences.” On that basis they were able to win major workplace and political victories. McAlevey points out that this kind of solidarity isn’t a given, but has to be built, often against the tendencies of the existing institutions. Labor organizers have to think about “what strategic choices are needed today for forging new working-class solidarities, even in the face of existing union organizations which do not value them.”

Indeed, one of the important lessons of labor history that’s too often forgotten is that labor movements frequently enter into direct confrontations with the repressive wing of the state — since in the last resort even democratic capitalist societies rely on the police to preserve order. This is just one reason why labor movements have a particular interest in supporting movements against police violence, and criticizing them from a point of view supposedly based in class doesn’t make any sense.

The EPA’s culture was already toxic. Now, they’re putting employees at risk for COVID for no reason

Though COVID-19 cases are rising, Trump’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency management is forcing its workers to return to unsafe offices — disproportionately exposing our Black and brown scientists and engineers to serious risk, as well as the communities we serve, with no real justification. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) workforce has been telecommuting since March — and has been able to fulfill its mission of protecting human health and the environment effectively while working remote. EPA leadership even congratulated our workforce for the quantity and quality of work we completed while telecommuting. Now, EPA is changing direction midstream, when worker productivity is at an all-time high, and while COVID-19 remains a grave threat.

There is no mission reason why the scientists and engineers of EPA should report to their offices. The environment will not suddenly be cleaner if we change our work location. Administrator Andrew Wheeler is simply intent on sending EPA workers back to unsafe offices to abide by Trump’s politically-driven “reopening” agenda.

While EPA’s return-to-office plan has been an assault on the health and safety of all our workers, EPA management has made no acknowledgement of the facts: Black Americans are three times as likely to die from COVID-19 as their white counterparts. Latinos are also dying at disproportionately elevated rates when compared to whites.

Take my regional office in Chicago for example. Workers of color in EPA’s Region 5, Chicago, often face long public transit commutes from segregated communities, just to arrive at an EPA office that is not equipped to protect their safety. This doesn’t just impact EPA employees, but the communities we live and work in. If one of our workers should die as a result of EPA’s reckless choice to send us back into an unsafe office during a pandemic, it will more likely be one of our Black or brown colleagues who suffers the gravest consequences. But with nearly all EPA regions in-line to reopen, from Dallas, to Atlanta, to Washington D.C. and New York, this is true across the board.

Meanwhile, EPA leadership has responded to the civic uprising against racial injustice these past weeks, and during this pandemic, with emails filled with platitudes. “EPA has zero tolerance for racism or any act of discrimination against our employees,” Wheeler recently wrote. This is false. EPA is taking actions that cause harm to Black and brown workers, including the return-to-office plan that he and the White House promulgated in the middle of a pandemic. 

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. In my 13 years as a Black woman scientist at EPA, I have witnessed countless acts of prejudice by EPA management. I had to watch a video clip with over twenty co-workers for “training”  with a wastewater treatment plant staff —all white — rapping poorly and dancing foolishly, in a manner that could only be described as mocking Black culture. No one in the room found it funny but the EPA managers. Then there’s Susan Schultz, a manager from EPA’s NYC office, recently featured on TMZ, for making a false call to the police about her Black neighbors. EPA has not taken any immediate action against “Permit Karen,” while the rest of the world is on notice that white people who threaten the lives of people of color with false reports face losing their jobs.

It seems the culture at EPA is deeply broken, and it won’t change until management finally faces reality and takes meaningful steps to transform it. 

And yet, EPA management drives ahead with the reopening plan that we know would disproportionately harm our workers of color. It will coerce our scientists, engineers, attorneys and support staff back into an unsafe workplace without compliance with CDC recommendations requiring HVAC performance, physical cubicle partitions, covers for toilets or written action plans for when a worker is exposed to or contracts COVID-19. Workers have already reported that while returning to the office is “voluntary” for the first and second phases, they have felt pressure from their managers to come in to the office with no recourse should they face retaliation for prioritizing their health and safety by continuing to telework

Re-opening our offices is a choice that will put Black and brown people at greater risk. If EPA is committed to racial justice and eliminating white supremacy in our offices, we must maintain tele-work through the end of this pandemic and put safety first, plain and simple.

We urge members of Congress to take action to demand answers from EPA about this plan. And we urge everyone to sign our petition demanding racial equity in EPA’s return plan.

Why Congress can’t curb Trump’s power to commute Roger Stone’s sentence and pardon others

President Donald Trump recently commuted the sentence of his friend and political ally Roger Stone, meaning Stone remains convicted but does not have to serve prison time.

Article II, section 2 of the Constitution grants the president the power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment” – which includes reducing or commuting sentences, as well as pardoning people for federal crimes, which can reverse their convictions, or preventing them from being charged in the first place.

All but two presidents in U.S. history have issued pardons – and the two who didn’t were William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, both of whom died after very short times in office.

Trump is not the first president to use the pardon power to remedy what he sees as politically motivated prosecutions of his appointees and allies. But as a former general counsel to the House of Representatives, I believe congressional Democrats can’t investigate the president’s decision or do anything to reverse it.

Pardons and commutations are common

In December 1992, after losing his reelection bid, George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five other officials who had served in the Reagan administration of charges related to the Iran-Contra arms-dealing scandal, in which the U.S. illegally sold weapons to Tehran and sent the proceeds to fund right-wing insurgents in Nicaragua.

In his last days in office, Bill Clinton issued 175 pardons and commutations, including to his half brother, a former business partner and Marc Rich, a wealthy financier who fled the U.S. after being indicted for tax evasion. George W. Bush and Barack Obama also issued pardons and commutations to controversial recipients.

However, most presidents through history, including recently, have focused their pardons on “values and social policy,” White House historian Lindsay Chervinsky told The New York Times. One example of that is Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of former President Richard Nixon, in what he said was an effort to ensure “domestic tranquility,” to heal the nation from the rift of Watergate.

In response to the Stone commutation, Jack Goldsmith, a conservative legal scholar at Harvard Law School and a former official in George W. Bush’s Justice Department, told The New York Times, “This has happened before in a way. But there has been nothing like Trump from a systematic perspective.” He noted that 31 of the 36 pardons and commutations Trump has issued have advanced Trump’s own personal interests or been brought to his attention by celebrities.

A source deep in history

In 1925, Chief Justice William Howard Taft, himself a former president, explained the source of the president’s pardon power: “The King of England, before our Revolution, in the exercise of his prerogative, had always exercised his power to pardon … ordinary crime and misdemeanors.” Since at least medieval times in England, the royal prerogative has been a set of powers a monarch can use regardless of opinions or objections from other parts of government. The prerogative is derived from the historic belief in a monarch’s divine right to rule. It includes the power to alter, or reverse, criminal punishments.

As such, the Supreme Court has held the pardon power to be an “act of graceentirely within the president’s discretion and beyond review by Congress or the courts.

That exclusion is so powerful that one Supreme Court ruling declared a pardon “makes [a pardoned person] … a new man.” That 1866 decision came in response to a federal law passed after the Civil War that required anyone who wanted to practice law in federal courts to swear an oath that they had never borne arms against the U.S. nor served in the Confederate government.

In that case, Augustus Hill Garland, a former Confederate senator, had – like many former Confederate officials – received a full pardon from President Andrew Johnson for his participation in any aspect of the rebellion. As a result, the court ruled, he did not need to swear the oath to be allowed to continue his career as an attorney. The pardons could serve the nation, as Johnson had hoped, and help bring the American people back together after the war.

Amid worries that Trump’s commutation of Stone’s sentence was self-serving, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, New York Democrat Jerry Nadler, has promised to investigate.

But it’s not clear that Congress can actually do that: In early July, the Supreme Court ruled that the power of Congress to investigate extends only as far as its power to enact legislation. Congress can’t limit the president’s power to pardon, so I believe it can’t investigate his use of it, either.

Stanley M. Brand, Distinguished Fellow in Law and Government, Pennsylvania State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Trump’s myth-making mistake: His campaign projects his delusions and failures onto Biden

Down in the polls, Donald Trump is betting that voters will decide only that Joe Biden will look worse.

To me, just how Trump is doing that is more than concerning: Trump is choosing an unsubstantiated, scattershot campaign based on myths and false associations that present dangers that just are not borne out.

If Trump actually believes in Trumpism, anti-immigrant policies, preservation of racist symbolism, his tariff-laden approach to foreign trade and security issues, his bull-in-a-china-shop approach to foreign affairs and support of only the wealthy, he should stick to those.  Obviously, he should knock off his braggadocio about leadership during the coronavirus, since we are losing that fight Bigly.

Still, calling out Biden as a demon who will invite widespread riots and social rot seems unnecessarily over the top. They just disagree about approaching divisiveness and direction as president.

Let’s agree that there has been a continuing fountain of media commentaries about the gap between the world as Trump sees it and the realities of coronavirus, joblessness, recession-like economics, international and domestic racial strife.

But as the Trump campaign is suggesting in its ads, in Trump’s remarks, written and ad-libbed, if you don’t like what you have now, it’ll be worse under Biden, whom Trump constantly seeks to belittle and to paint alternately as a doddering fool or an extreme leftist.

Meanwhile, the Left, which now has become a disorganized amalgam of anyone anti-Trump, is most happy that Biden is not Trump, and somewhat only reluctantly accepting of a Biden who is making efforts to include enough progressive stances in his quiver to keep Democrats united.

Still, the consensus seems to be that Trump is having trouble making his dystopian view of Biden-as-leader stick.

Unpretty politics

We can also agree that politics as is practiced in these United States has never been pretty or straightforward. Exaggeration, partisanship, monied interests, gerrymandering and other electoral tricks are always part of the scene — whether foreign actors are involved or not.

But here’s a typical line of attack, this one from a Breitbart.com news report picked up and promoted thematically by Tucker Carlson on Fox and social media: “Joe Biden’s radical proposal for the Democrat Party platform for 2020 seeks to put an end to America’s suburban communities by forcing low-income housing into every neighborhood and flooding every community with immigrants, legal or otherwise.”

Yes, general platform-type statements for the Biden camp include support for expanding affordable housing and enforcing Fair Housing Act provisions, that there should be a comprehensive approach to immigration and that we should do whatever is possible to address racial, income and class distinctions.

But ending suburban communities? Hardly. If anything, Biden’s current successes in polling seem to ride on more suburbanites switching camps to support him. It’s a sample of the turning and twisting – something both sides are good at – of well-intended aspirations to make them sound like anti-choice, anti-individual, anti-local decision-making.

Trump ads show cities on fire, threatening public safety and abetting violent crime, and assert that Biden wants to eliminate policing altogether.

Trump messages

Trump held an expansive “press conference” in the Rose Garden this week that was, by multiple accounts, a rambling monologue mostly attacking Biden (31 times) and Democrats. By most measures, it was more campaign rally talk than national policy.

To Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, it was “an hour-long diatribe against Joe Biden, attributing a platform to his Democratic opponent that bore hardly any resemblance to anything occurring in the real world.”

Among Trump’s contentions: Biden will incentivize illegal alien child smuggling,” “abolish immigration enforcement,” “abolish our police departments” and “abolish our prisons, I guess.” Democrats are even “calling for defunding of our military,” Trump said. Democratic mayors possibly “wouldn’t mind” if terrorists “blow up our cities.”

Biden’s energy plan “basically means no windows” in homes or offices by 2030, he said, and “cold office space in the winter and warm office space in the summer.”

Milbank asked: “Um, Biden would abolish windows? “I’m not making this up!” Trump said, mid-jeremiad. (Actually, he was).”

While presidents have used their office to campaign for reelection, “Trump’s reinterpretation of that approach was downright bizarre.”

A long fall

I think we’re ready to vote now, but we must endure four more months of this type of depressing make-believe. It falls to us to hear all this (or switch off the messaging altogether) with some skepticism.

It seems a shame because even Trump acknowledges that these two candidates represent a very clear choice in a variety of actual policy positions, from climate change and environment to foreign policy to the role of race in society and income inequality. They have legitimate differences without resorting to made-up exaggerations meant to gin up fears.

As Trump grows more cornered politically, we can anticipate that he will make up more outrageous untruths to advance his own cause by denigrating Biden’s.

For his part, Biden has presented ads depicting a mix of very positive, low-key assurances of caring about people during coronavirus as well as out and out attacks on the very practices that Trump presents as effective leadership. While opinionated, there appear to be fewer let’s pretend moments in Biden’s messaging. Instead, Biden is open to criticism about his actual record over 45 years in government, about his flexibility and responsiveness to a growing push to the Left and a persistent problem with gaffes.

The polls to date, which can be wrong, but are interesting for their trend differences,  seem to reflect much more anti-Trump than pro-Biden, if that makes a difference.

Bring on November.

Mail order macho: The cheap Halloween costuming of Donald Trump’s toy fascism

If the street scenes during protests in Portland, Oregon, looked familiar this week, it’s because you’ve seen them before … in Iraq. 

Heavily armed troops in camouflage garb with helmets and tactical vests moving through a community like an occupation army? Check.

Hostile civilians gathered together on the street in protest of the occupation army? Check.

Complete lack of knowledge about the civilian population on the part of the occupying army — whose members are not from the area and are there on temporary assignment? Check.

No lines of communication between the two sides? Check.

Random civilians grabbed off the street and hustled away to God-only-knows-where without probable cause or criminal charges? Check.

Stagnant situation on the ground that doesn’t get better no matter how many troops are moved in and how many civilians are grabbed off the street? Check.

Occupying army operating on orders from distant commanders far away from the action, who have limited information from the scene and no local authority? Check.

The whole thing deteriorating into a quagmire from which neither side will back down? Check.

It’s so eerily similar, the old quote from then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld comes to mind: “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time,” he told a group of soldiers who were complaining about the haphazard manner of their assignment to Iraq and their lack of proper equipment.

That’s precisely Trump’s problem, isn’t it? He hasn’t been able to “go to war” with the army he wants against Black Lives Matter protesters — because his real army has refused to take the battlefield. Remember? That happened after Trump used some National Guard troops under federal control to clear protesters out of the way near Lafayette Park for his disastrous photo-op with a borrowed Bible outside St. John’s Church on June 1. It turned out that Trump had somehow mouse-trapped the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, to accompany him. 

But shortly after that, Milley and other military commanders reacted forcefully and negatively to Trump’s use of active-duty soldiers against peaceful protesters. By the end of the week, all regular Army soldiers had been sent home from their temporary assignments to Washington, and military leaders had drawn a line in the sand that they would not cross. Without threatening to disobey orders from the commander in chief, military leaders made it clear that they would not facilitate Trump’s militarization of his response to protesters around the country.

Trump wanted a show of force against protesters who had taken to the streets to show their support for Black Lives Matter. Protesters were in the streets by the thousands to protest the killing of George Floyd as well as other killings and use of force against Black Americans by police. Trump seized on the spreading unrest to launch a new push for “law and order” in an effort to boost his sagging campaign for re-election.

But where? And how? It looked at first like Trump would order the streets cleared in downtown Seattle, during the period when they were occupied by protesters, but Seattle took care of that with their own cops. So he focused his attention on the uprisings in Portland that had been going on nightly since the end of May against both the Floyd killing and the death of Jason Washington, a Portland resident killed by police in 2018. 

Trump couldn’t order in the 82nd Airborne Division. He tried that in Washington and failed. So he ordered William Barr, his attorney general, and Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of homeland security, to cobble together a homemade militia using officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration and Customs and Border Protection.  These are civilian enforcement agents trained to patrol the borders with Mexico and Canada, check travelers at airports for contraband in their carry-ons, and inspect shipments of imported goods coming across our borders from foreign countries. 

How do you create an intimidating army out of a bunch of civil servants whose previous experience in law enforcement has been locking up little kids and their moms along the border and frisking traveling salespersons at airports for bottles containing more than three ounces of shampoo?

Drape them in plenty of camo, of course. Give them a budget and turn them loose on the internet to visit sites like TacticalGear.com, where you can buy everything from a Condor Three-Fold Mag Recovery Pouch to High Speed Gear Taco Kydex handcuff pouches to Blackhawk Highstorm Advanced Tactical Elbow Pads V2 to a Condor Open Top M4 Mag Pouch to a Safariland Quick Release Leg Strap SLS Tactical Thigh Holster to a Hazard 4 Small ID Window Patch.

No, on second thought, forget the Hazard 4 Small ID Window Patch. You won’t be needing that particular piece of camo tactical gear because you won’t be displaying any identification at all. 

The unmarked, unnamed Trumpian shock troops look like they’ve been assembled from an off-the-shelf parts bin. It’s lame-o “law and order,” done on the cheap. And that’s the problem with insta-militias like the one deployed in Portland and those planned for deployment to Chicago, Albuquerque, and other metropolitan areas around the country with mayors who happen to be Democrats. How intimidating can a pretend army be if it’s wearing patches that say  “Transportation Security Administration”? What are protesters going to do? Throw up their arms and cry out, “I give up! I forgot and packed my nail clippers!”

The camo-goofs sent out by Barr and Wolf to terrorize protesters in Portland are using tear gas, “non-lethal” riot control weapons, and paintball guns firing pepper pellets. Some photographs from the scene in Portland clearly show these government militia armed with M4 rifles and carrying 9mm handguns in leg holsters, but there have been no reports of lethal ammunition being used against protesters. Yet. 

Protesters have been wearing bicycle helmets, goggles, face shields and heavy clothing, including some tactical vests probably purchased from the same outfitters the militarized government thugs use. 

Recently, the protesters in Portland have had some success against the government militias by arraying a “Wall of Moms” with interlocking arms against the armed government troops. When tear gas was used against the moms, dads began showing up armed with leaf blowers to dissipate tear gas away from protesters. They are the same tactics used by the Yippies in Chicago in 1968 when they showed up at the Democratic National Convention and announced they would run a 145-pound pig named Pigasus for president. 

Sometimes confronting force with humor is the best tactic. Moms in yellow T-shirts and dads with leaf-blowers are the perfect way to show up Trump as a pitiful helpless giant. His moves to bring fascism to the streets of America are working about as well as his attempts to wish away the virus that is ravaging the country in a silent riot of disease and death. 

Donald Trump is a toy fascist. This time we don’t need the Yippies to run a pig for president. The Republican Party is doing that for us.  

Mail-in snafu: Democrats at odds in New York City primary that refuses to end

One month after New York’s June 23 primary, vote counting in the state’s 12th congressional district still isn’t complete — and the fate of Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a 14-term incumbent and chair of the House Oversight Committee, is still unclear. 

Campaign officials on the ground report that about 12,500 mail-in ballots have already been disqualified in the district, which covers Manhattan’s East Side, Greenpoint in Brooklyn, a western chunk of Queens and Roosevelt Island. (In terms of per-capita income, it’s the wealthiest congressional district in the nation.)

That’s an extraordinarily high percentage — but the problem isn’t voting by mail per se, but an unanticipated bureaucratic glitch emerging from a brand new process.

Ahead of the primary, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order that expanded voting by mail to the entire state, regardless of voter need, to help ensure election continuity amid the coronavirus pandemic.

In prior elections, absentee voters were required to pay for postage, but Cuomo’s emergency expansion ordered local boards of elections (BOE) to send voters a postage-paid ballot.

This was a critical difference: postage-paid envelopes aren’t typically stamped by the U.S. Postal Service, so a sizable portion of these absentee ballots were returned without a dated postmark — rendering them invalid under the law.

The New York City BOE had instructed USPS offices to postmark all ballots, but it appears that the policy wasn’t applied consistently throughout the city, specifically in the 12th District.

Furthermore, the city had never processed mail-in ballots at anywhere near this volume. The BOE says voters returned 408,000 of the approximately 778,000 absentee ballots it sent out this year. For perspective, as the Gothamist pointed out, the total number of New York City absentee ballots cast in all 2016 elections — including all primaries on national, state and local levels as well as the general election — was less than 300,000.

In another wrinkle, for a ballot to be counted, it had to be postmarked by June 23, and the BOE had to receive it by June 30. But without a postmark, it was impossible to tell if a ballot that arrived close to the deadline had in fact been mailed in time, a fact that the Postal Service acknowledged in an email.

“Because of the entry of ballots so close to Election Day there was a high probability that some ballots would not be delivered prior to the election,” a spokesperson from the agency’s Election Mail department told Salon.

These complications have meant that a final count for the 12th district won’t be complete until Aug. 3, a full 40 days after the Democratic primary.

A lawsuit filed July 17 in the Southern District of New York by two candidates and 21 voters estimates that, due to the postmark issue, as many as 16,000 ballots could eventually be disqualified from Brooklyn alone.

The complaint lays the blame in part on the State Board of Elections’ reliance on the USPS, alleging that ballots have been accepted and rejected with ‘lightning-like randomness.'”

Suraj Patel, a Brooklyn progressive who was Maloney’s principal primary challenger, recently signed on to that lawsuit. Maloney led Patel by fewer than 600 votes at the end of machine vote-counting, but the current margin is unknown and the campaigns have offered different accounts.

The 12th District’s blank spots are in Brooklyn and Manhattan’s East Side. Patel told Salon that the lion’s share of ballots without postmarks came from the young and diverse electorate in Brooklyn, where he believes he did well.

“Right now we’re down about 1,000 votes in the count,” Patel said in an interview, citing internal numbers that campaign staff have collected manually at the ballot counts. “By the time they finish, we think we’ll be inside a thousand.”

“So think about that,” he continued. “A difference of less than a thousand votes, with 12,500 votes that don’t count, most of them coming from the most diverse part of the district. It’s sad. We’ll never know how the people spoke in this primary.”

Patel’s campaign isn’t fully convinced it’s a coincidence that the snafu hit his base hardest, and has suggested that these compounded bureaucratic failures amount to “de facto” suppression of minority votes.

A source with the Maloney campaign told Salon a different story. Her campaign’s tabulation shows Maloney up by 2,000 votes — double the margin claimed by Patel — and the source said that Patel claims about the disqualified votes are distorted. 

“About two-thirds of that 12,500 comes from Manhattan,” said the source, who would only discuss internal data on condition of anonymity. “And we beat him about 60-40 in the regular count there. So the numbers don’t work: He doesn’t have a path.”

The larger point here is that it’s impossible for anyone could know with certainty how accurate the results are. Furthermore, voters in the district won’t know whether their ballot was rejected until the state sends out notices after the general election in November.

“While everyone wants the results to be certified, we can’t sacrifice accuracy for speed when it comes to something as critical as peoples’ votes,” Rep. Maloney told Salon in a statement.

“My team has been at the counting sites every day, and we are thankful for the hard work being done by the Board of Elections workers who are putting everything they have into getting ballots processed as quickly and accurately as possible. Registered voters went to great lengths to participate in this primary, and we owe it to them to ensure that this process is handled with patience and integrity,” she said.

The Maloney campaign did not say whether it planned to join the lawsuit. However, Maloney has joined with Patel and two minor candidates in a joint statement, asking Cuomo to order all ballots counted that arrived by the deadline, with or without a postmark. 

“Put bluntly: A missing postmark, over which voters had no control, should not disenfranchise those voters,” the statement said.

Cuomo has resisted, saying the issue belongs with the courts or state lawmakers. Gubernatorial intervention would literally require Cuomo to retroactively rewrite election law, opening him to accusations that he changed the rules after the game was over.

That could be a risky precedent for a Democratic governor, given the rich Republican history of voter suppression and President Trump’s efforts to discredit mail-in voting as prone to fraud. Trump has already hinted that he may reject the election results entirely if he loses.

Patel says that doesn’t get Cuomo off the hook. “The voters followed the rules,” he said. “They didn’t do anything wrong, but they’re the ones paying the price. Cuomo wouldn’t be suppressing votes — he’d be re-enfranchising voters. It’s the right thing to do and it’s the thing he has to do.”

This thoroughly muddled result in a single congressional district raises serious questions about the strength of vote-by-mail processes in the general election. Combine that with a budget-starved USPS — controlled by Trump political appointees who don’t show much urgency to shore up their systems ahead of November — and the outlook grows bleak.

The USPS’ Election Mail department emailed a 954-word statement in response to Salon’s questions. In the statement, a spokeswoman suggested that despite the black eye from New York, the Postal Service does not intend to make substantive changes ahead of one of the most consequential elections in U.S. history.

USPS “is committed to delivering ballots in a timely manner,” the statement says, but “cannot guarantee a specific delivery date or alter standards to comport with individual state election laws.”

The agency made clear that it is responsible for educating voters and consulting with election officials, so that they can make informed decisions about how and when they cast their ballots.

USPS places much of the onus directly on voters, who, it says, “must understand their local jurisdiction’s requirements for timely submission of absentee ballots, including postmarking requirements.”

In response to questions about the funding crisis, the spokeswoman said that “the Postal Service’s financial condition is not going to impact our ability to process and deliver election and political mail.”

She added that USPS has “ample capacity to adjust our nationwide processing and delivery network to meet projected Election and Political Mail volume, including any additional volume that may result as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

However, the Postmaster General secretly issued new guidance suggesting otherwise. The new orders direct major cost-cutting changes that could slow mail delivery.

“If the plants run late, they will keep the mail for the next day,” one guideline says.

In an early coronavirus relief bill, lawmakers authorized an additional $10 billion to support the USPS through the pandemic, but the loan stalled amid a dispute with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin over terms which would allow his department to take over some agency operations.

On July 1, Mnuchin announced a $700 million taxpayer-sponsored bailout of a trucking company and Pentagon contractor worth only $70 million, whose former CEO, Bill Zollars, had been confirmed to the USPS board of governors the month prior. Salon reported that the Department of Justice has accused the company in federal court of crimes committed under Zollars’ tenure, including defrauding the Pentagon to the tune of millions of dollars.

Two months ago, the Democratic-controlled House passed another $25 billion emergency aid package to keep the beleaguered agency alive, but the Republican-led Senate has not yet taken up the measure.

Neither the New York State Board of Elections nor Gov. Cuomo’s office responded to Salon’s request for comment.

5 shocking revelations from new records of Trump’s intel briefing

A new document declassified by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence gives a new glimpse into Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation that was eventually taken over by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

It records the notes of an FBI briefer who discussed foreign intelligence threats with then-candidate Donald Trump, Chris Christie, and Michael Flynn in August of 2016. The nature of the briefing has previously drawn scrutiny. While it was largely conducted as a typical security briefing of a presidential candidate, it was also carried out by a briefer involved in the investigation of associates of Trump’s campaign — including Flynn. Though not illegal or against official rules, critics have objected that it was inappropriate for the FBI to use a security briefing for purposes that the candidate himself was not aware of.

DNI John Ratcliffe presumably declassified the document to further the aims of Trump’s allies who are seeking to discredit Crossfire Hurricane and the broader Russia investigation. It doesn’t really present much new ammunition on that front, though, since the basics of the briefing were already known.

But here are five revealing details that the records contain:

1. “Joe, are the Russians bad?”

When the briefer, Joe Pientka, informed Trump of the nature of the Chinese and Russian counterintelligence threats, the candidate responded with this seemingly naive question. He continued, referring to the fact that the Russians had comparatively more intelligence officers in the U.S.: “Because they have more numbers, are they worse than the Chinese?”

Pientka responded by saying they are both bad.

“The numbers of [intelligence officers] present in the U.S. is not an indicator of the severity of the threat,” he noted.

2. Trump was warned about what happening, despite his claims

In the midst of the Russia investigation during his presidency, Trump claimed that he was never warned by the FBI of the threat posed to his campaign and the election more broadly:

As the documents make clear, though, Trump was warned explicitly that the Russians would likely try to recruit his associates and potentially infiltrate his campaign:

In the classical sense, an [intelligence officer] will attempt to recruit an individual to tell him or her the things he or she wants to know. This is known as HUMINT. It is highly unlikely a Foreign Intelligence Service will attempt to recruit you, however, you need to be mindful of the people on your periphery: your staff, domestic help, business associates, friends, etc. Those individuals may present more vulnerabilities or be more susceptible to an approach. Those individuals will also be targeted for recruitment due to their access to you. That does not mean [intelligence officers] will not make a run at you. They will send their [intelligence officers] in diplomatic cover, businessperson NOCs, as well as sources they have developed around you to elicit information and gain assessment on you.

Given the voluminous contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russia, it’s likely this is exactly what happened.

It is true, though, that Trump was never specifically warned about the threats under consideration by the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

3. Trump’s comments about Barron

In a moment revealing the shallowness of Trump’s understanding of cybersecurity, the candidate compared the threats from foreign intelligence to his youngest son:

Yes, I understand it’s a dark time. Nothing is safe on computers anymore. We used to lock things in a safe in a room. Now anyone can get in. My son is ten years old. He has a computer and we put a codeword on it. Within ten minutes he broke the codeword and we needed to put another one on the computer. Kids are genius.

4. Trump was given specific instructions about cybersecurity that he clearly never listened to.

Pientka told Trump:

You should be mindful of your use of landline telephones, cellular telephones, e-mail and computer networks. As you are aware, discussions regarding classified information should only be held in a facility certified for classified discussions. Therefore, a Foreign Intelligence Service would not necessarily target you technically to gain access to the classified information you were briefed on, but you will be targeted for sensitive and personal information about you.

[Pientka] followed up by stating, in addition, you should not only consider how you communicate but where you communicate sensitive or personal information. Foreign Intelligence Services will develop a pattern on where you hold private meetings or discussions. They will attempt to determine if the location is a meeting room, kitchen, bedroom, vehicle, etc. Once a pattern is established they will attempt to exploit that location technically.

Despite these specific instructions — and he has doubtless received similar and more elaborate guidance since then — Trump has repeatedly violated best practices for avoiding foreign surveillance.

5. “During the ODNI briefs, writer actively listened for topics or questions regarding the Russian Federation.”

The document was filed as a part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and Pientka noted that he was specifically conscious of mentions of Russia during the briefing. None of the comments from Trump’s side of the briefing seem particularly noteworthy with regard to the investigation.

However, as Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has argued, it was unwise to have someone involved in an investigation of individuals close to Trump conduct the candidate’s security briefing. This could prevent a conflict of interest, or at the very least, make candidates potentially suspicious of their briefers. For these reasons, Horowitz has recommended that the department specifically set guidelines restricting this sort of conduct.

Fox News breaks down how Trump’s losing reelection: “Not good news for the president in these polls”

Fox News anchor Bret Baier on Thursday broke down how the latest polls from the network lack any good news for President Donald Trump.

“We’re giving you the first look tonight at new Fox polls for several battleground states,” Baier said. 

“Not good news for the president in these polls,” he noted.

In Pennslyvania, Trump was only receiving support for 39% of voters, while former Vice President Joe Biden was polling at 50%. Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016.

“The president has lost 3 points since April,” Baier noted.

In Michigan, Biden is polling at 49% while Trump is polling at 40%. Trump also carried Michigan in 2016.

Biden is up 51% to 39% in Minnesota, a state Hillary Clinton narrowly carried in 2016.

New York Times’ sexist double standard: AOC coverage reeks of misogyny

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez makes some people very uncomfortable, and apparently that includes some editors and reporters at the New York Times.

So rather than report on Ocasio-Cortez’s riveting, viral speech on the House floor on Thursday aas a signal moment in the fight against abusive sexism, Times congressional reporters Luke Broadwater and Catie Edmondson filed a story full of sexist double standards and embraced the framing of her critics by casting her as a rule-breaker trying to “amplify her brand.”

First things first: If you haven’t watched and heard her remarks yet, do so now. (There’s a transcript here.)

Then consider that the Times described the speech as “her most norm-shattering moment yet,” leading with the fact that “she took to the House floor to read into the Congressional Record a sexist vulgarity that Representative Ted Yoho, a Florida Republican, had used to refer to her.”

Washington Post reporters John Wagner and Paul Kane, by contrast, led their story by describing how “House Democrats rallied around a high-profile congresswoman Thursday in an extraordinary denunciation of sexism.”

A critical “tell” in the Times coverage — something perhaps only fellow journalists would fully appreciate at first — was that the paper had previously avoided directly quoting Yoho’s particular words, but did so now:

“In front of reporters, Representative Yoho called me, and I quote: ‘A fucking bitch,'” she said, punching each syllable in the vulgarity.

Author, cultural critic (and close friend) Mark Harris was quick to call the Times out:

In the first Times article on the matter, on Tuesday, Broadwater described Yoho’s words as “a pair of expletives” — noting that Ocasio-Cortez had “sought to turn the insult to her advantage.”

In his second article, on Wednesday, he referred to it as “a vulgar and sexist expletive.”

Now, all of a sudden, the Times was printing the words “fucking bitch.”

James Fallows, the renowned Atlantic national correspondent, asked in a tweet: “WHY should these words appear in a quote from AOC, at whom they were hatefully directed, rather than one from Rep. Yoho, who actually said them?”

Progressive journalist Benjamin Dixon suggested a possible explanation:

The Times reporters wrote that after her speech, “Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who excels at using her detractors to amplify her own political brand, invited a group of Democratic women in the House to come forward to express solidarity with her.”

Only then did the Times acknowledge the actual significance of the occasion:

More even than the profanity uttered on the House floor, where language is carefully regulated, what unfolded over the next hour was a remarkable moment of cultural upheaval on Capitol Hill.

But then it was back to ascribing mercenary motivations, describing how “the media-savvy Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had sprung into action to create a disruptive and viral event.”

Who edited this story? There’s no way to know. But the fact that the Times printed the word “fucking” means it must have got to the very top of the food chain.

Hamza Shaban, a business reporter for the Washington Post, called attention to the similarities between the Times’s framing of the story and the story’s own description, toward the end, of how Republicans have demonized Ocasio-Cortez.

The fundamental problem with the story, as Shaban noted, was that it cast Ocasio-Cortez as the violator of norms, rather than questioning the norms she was denouncing so eloquently.

As British educator Sinéad Fitzsimons put it in a tweet: “‘…her most norm-shattering moment…’ is standing up against abusive #sexism ? What exactly is the norm then?”

Science fiction author Sarah Pinsker noted the double standard, tweeting: “The NYT is doing exactly what AOC complained about in that speech, shaming her as if she somehow did something wrong in repeating the words he used against her.”

In fact, the double standards were everywhere. New York magazine writer Rebecca Traister, responding to Harris’ tweet, noted: “Women’s anger at male power abuse [is] regularly presented as path to self-advancement for the women. Voicing fury at systemic degradation is read as opportunistic. Whereas men’s abusive behavior rarely understood as fundamental to how they attained & maintain THEIR power. But it is!”

Progressive journalist Elizabeth Spiers:

Vanderbilt University law professor Gautam Hans:

Washington Post columnist Helaine Olen tweeted: “I’m not into NYT bashing — newspaper work is hard and reporters and editors make bad calls! — but referring to @AOC masterful speech as a ‘brand’ exercise is a major, major miss.”

David Remnick’s appreciation of Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks serves as an antidote of sorts to the Times story. Writing for the New Yorker, he gave her credit for her achievements:

Ocasio-Cortez has been at the forefront of major issues, including climate change, immigration, campaign-finance reform, and income inequality. Her ability to skewer a balky witness in committee hearings has proved as uncanny as it is entertaining.

In a speech that “should be studied for its measured cadence, its artful construction, and its refusal of ugliness,” Ocasio-Cortez “defended not only herself; she defended principle and countless women,” Remnick wrote.

And he clearly identified the real norm-killer:

The politics of our moment are dominated by a bully of miserable character, a President who has failed to contain a pandemic through sheer indifference, who has fabricated a reëlection campaign based on bigotry and the deliberate inflammation of division. His language is abusive, his attitude toward women disdainful.

In the Washington Post, Monica Hesse wrote that “On the subject of misogyny at least, her Thursday address was the speech of a lifetime.”

Ocasio-Cortez is an extraordinary political figure: a smart, brave, charismatic young Latina woman who refuses to be intimidated by anything or anyone.

Her very existence in Congress, along with her insistent, progressive agenda, her bold words and actions, and the ease with which she navigates pop culture and social media, have turned her into an icon — a singular walking, talking challenge to the conservative white male power structure.

As such, she tends to bring out the worst in some people.

On Thursday, she brought out the worst in the New York Times.